get a 


v fre 
rae he Ge 
regia Hite 


y 
RAE 
aa id 
arya te fot 
aeitan 


by hig Spl eet eat 
i" Pol ihe 
pa 

any 


ile ts 
Rates 


yh 
yevarey ¥ 


aH 


sisi 
iH 


ayes P 
Gaved ¥ # 
Se p if 


ies 3) 

fa. 

hae 
: 


y hyn rags seed 

P Oy eek aha 
* t ’ oF Padkll nimi 
maechanits magn mesh ie r 


Tey 
Ube ted i 
afar 


es Bee mee 
: spa (ais 8. at gc a 
ofan ME 
nd thas 
Si Wets 
t 


rye, 
rah vas 


a? yew 


Rs 
ah ag the PAu tt et 
bag te Bi an tardetehae! 
wien madi Athy TL paatitptuthe tReet 
v Were 7a das wor Pad 
5 tg tatoabatinls Set 
Abit bs 
Sete Ro wth Aye dbeibe moe 8 
ae Ak ate FEA 


Suse > Ye 
ear bate 
es a 








Digitized by the Internet Archive. 
— in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/gospelofmarkitscOObaco 


ma ; t 
« 4) ; . ’ nM) i= ay : 
nee iy s ma) lis A 

ce eee a 
‘ fel) 











het Pe ed a 
‘4 nl “ oh, : bar A i b . AP so vy - a A? 
AF, ee a PSE Ra aoe ia Gh a 
. AW Ra oy On We ' fi : ry nn wait) mn a 
7 7 5 if 7 } 4 F ie , a? ) w : tp : r] : T : 
i ae Pe a ee [ , a ; : \ t ty 7 





Uy iv 7 
. , ees a 





ple 


- 


hy eines " ih, ty 





ee 





Dan 
hee, 





THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


3 ; f 


ee ie ak 
; : / 


Ow 
4 i us 
be ¥ 





2 \ 

se 
ed 
me ; 
} 


fe } 
| 


THE GOSPEL OF MARK; °° 
ITS COMPOSITION AND DATE 


BY BENJAMIN WISNER ‘BACON 
D.D., LITT.D. (OXON.) 


BUCKINGHAM PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS 
IN YALE UNIVERSITY 





NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD : OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 


MCMXXV 


COPYRIGHT, 1925, BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


THE SAMUEL B, SNEATH 
MEMORIAL PUBLICATION FUND 


The present volume is the second work published by the Yale University 
Press on the Samuel B. Sneath Memorial Publication Fund. This Foun- 
dation was established on October 19, 1922, by a gift to the Divinity 
School of Yale University from Mrs. Laura 8S. Sneath, of Tiffin, Ohio, in 
memory of her husband, Samuel B. Sneath. He was born on December 
19, 1828, in Tiffin, where he resided until his death on January 7, 1915. 
As merchant, manufacturer, banker, and organizer of public utilities, he 
made, throughout a long and public-spirited life, a substantial contri- 
bution to the development of his native state. 





PREFACE 


THE present work is intended to complete the writer’s studies into 
the origin and nature of our oldest extant Gospel. In 1909 the Yale 
University Press published as the first of an intended series to be 
known as ‘‘The Modern Commentary’’ a volume entitled The Be- 
ginnings of Gospel Story. This was ‘‘A Historico-critical Inquiry 
into the Sources and Structure of the Gospel according to Mark, 
with Expository Notes upon the Text for English Readers.’’ It dis- 
cussed the question of geographical origin (pp. xxvill-xxx), but 
with the brevity imposed by proportionate consideration of other 
subjects proper to an Introduction to the Commentary. Fuller 
treatment of the question of provenance was made necessary by in- 
creasing interest in the history of the writing as the conviction be- 
came more and more general among scholars that Mark does indeed 
represent these ‘‘Beginnings.’’ In 1919 Volume VII of The Har- 
vard Theological Studies, entitled ‘‘Is Mark a Roman Gospel?’’ 
was published by the Harvard University Press, meeting this re- 
quirement so far as it lay within the writer’s power. Meantime 
questions of Composition and Date came very prominently into the 
foreground. To these the present volume is dedicated. 

Two conspicuous features of recent gospel criticism have com- 
pelled the most careful reconsideration which can be given to these 
questions of the Composition and Date of Mark. The vital impor- 
tance assumed by them since the breaking away by Harnack and a 
croup of philologians from formerly accepted dates for the origin 
of the Synoptic writings has been set forth in our opening chapters. 
The present writer hopes that his work in vindication of ancient 
tradition on this score may contribute to a result corresponding in 
some degree to the vindication now generally accorded to ancient 
datings for the Revelation of John against the attempt of the Tu- 
bingen School to place its composition a generation earlier. The con- 
tribution of Harnack’s Chronologie toward bringing back criticism 
from this delusive by-path was not small. Benefits even greater 
may be expected from the restoration of clarity and well-founded 
confidence on questions of Synoptic datings; for of late these have 
been reduced to greater confusion and uncertainty than ever. 
Questions of structure and composition are inseparable from the 

question of date. Fortunately great progress can here be recorded. 
French study of the Procédés de Redaction des trois premiers 


vill PREFACE 


Evangélistes was evinced in the useful volume published in 1908 
under this title by F. Nicolardot, supplementing the more extensive 
work of Loisy. But German scholars were as usual the leaders in 
this close and microscopic analysis. Already in 1908 G. H. Muller 
had published an ‘‘Enquiry into the Technique of Luke and 
Matthew and their Sources’’ under the title Zur Synopse. In 1913 
Walther Haupt contributed a volume entitled Worte Jesu und 
Gemeindeiiberlieferung, an ‘‘ Enquiry into the History of the Syn- 
optic Sources.’’ Martin Dibelius subsequently covered a similar 
field with his Formgeschichte des Evangeluums. But the most sys- 
tematic presentation of precisely the line of study which now con- 
cerns us was that of K. L. Schmidt in 1919, entitled Der Rahmen — 
der Geschichte Jesu. The veteran Rudolf Bultmann in 1921 sums 
up the results of the application by this school of what has been 
designated: Die Formgeschichtliche Methode in a volume entitled 
Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition. We are leaving behind 
us the notion of a Mark composed by dictation of Peter, and begin- 
ning to apply the methods applied by the archaeologist to the tan- 
gled masses of masonry, one layer superimposed upon or incorpor- 
ating another, which he encounters in his excavations. 

The careful reader cannot fail to remark in the present volume a 
regrettable absence of use of some of the kindred studies just men- 
tioned, a lack in part accounted for by the disruption of scientific 
cooperation occasioned by the war, in part by the delay which has 
intervened between the completion of the manuscript and its pub- 
lication. References to the more recent volumes cited are therefore 
few, and usually in the form of footnotes attached after completion 
of the text. A certain compensation for this disuse of contemporary 
research may perhaps be found in the fact of many coincidences of 
judgment between independent students. For independence on the 
part of the present writer will be readily perceived from the fact 
that the volume already referred to, published in 1909 under the 
title Beginmngs of Gospel Story, exhibits in outline all the main 
features of the present study of ‘‘the Sources and Structure of the 
Gospel.’’ Independence on the part of the German contributors is 
self-evident. . 

The recent appearance of M. Werner’s important study entitled 
Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium (1923) 
must excuse a degree of attention, perhaps too slight, given to an 
argument in opposition to that herein advanced. On the other hand 
further delay in publication might have enabled the writer to win 
additional support from studies such as B. H. Streeter’s Four Gos- 


PREFACE 1X 


pels (1925), E. T. Merrill’s Essays in Early Christian History 
(1924), D. W. Riddle’s article ‘‘The Martyr-motif in Mark’’ in the 
Journal of Religion for July, 1924, and especially the series of ar- 
ticles now appearing in The Journal of Theological Studies by 
Prof. C. H. Turner on ‘‘The Markan Use of Language.’’ The task 
of adjustment, correction, improvement, entailed ‘by further study 
of these kindred (and for the most part corroboratory) researches, 
will fall now to the reader. It rests thus with the court of last resort. 
If the present volume has contributed anything to the truth let it 
prosper and prevail; if it champions errors servants of the truth 
who expose and refute them will render a welcome’service to 


Tor AUTHOR. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Part I. IntrrRopuctory. Opinions HANDED Down. 


CHAPTER 

I. Nature and Importance of the Problem of Date 3 
II. Accepted Dates and the Challenge of Harnack 14 
III. Primitive Testimony and Later Inference 22 
IV. The Date and Meaning of Papias 30 


Part Il. EvipencrE From EScHATOLoGY. 


V. The Eschatological Discourse 53 
VI. Proof and Probability 69 
VII. Christian Eschatology in the Pauline Period 79 
VIII. The Little Apocalypse of Thessalonians 88 
IX. The Markan Doom-chapter in Matthean Adaptation 99 
X. The Doom-chapter in Luke 113 
XI. The Doom-chapter in Mark 120 


Part III. Evipence rrom ARRANGEMENT OF MATERIAL. 


XII. The Discourses 137 
XIII. The Outline of the Ministry 152 
XIV. The New Passover 168 
XV. Why Mark Is Incomplete 187 
XVI. The Linguistic Argument 204 


Part LV. DErvELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. 


XVII. Pauline and Markan Christology 221 
XVIII. Pauline Influence. (a) Indirect 242 
XIX. Pauline Influence. (b) Direct 261 


Part V. Constructive DATING. 


XX. The Tradition as Affected by First Peter 275 
XXI. The Date of Peter’s ‘‘Departure’’ 285 
XXII. Internal Evidence of Authorship 298 
XXIII. Internal Evidence of Date 308 


XXIV. Summary and Application OLE 


Ces oy 2 ie 

Pye Liam Ps paee 
Eapet aac 
Bar 
ae mee) ay i ee 


om 


a 
| + 


’ 
4 
a 
i" 
Nios | 
Cake 





PART J 
INTRODUCTORY. OPINIONS HANDED DOWN 





CHAPTER I 


INTRODUCTORY. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 
OF THE PROBLEM OF DATE 


AFTER a century of discussion gospel critics have arrived at one 
fixed point of agreement, the priority of Mark. All conceivable 
theories to account for the mingled resemblances and diversities of 
the three Synoptic evangelists have been tried out, leaving as the 
accepted solution the employment of Mark by Matthew and Luke,* 
whether (as the great majority believe) independently, or (as a few 
maintain) in some sort of limited interrelation.” This, of course, 
makes the question of date for the Church’s record of the life and 
work of Jesus hang upon Mark. 

We have no evidence for the currency of Matthew earlier than 
100. Indisputable employments of it begin with Ignatius, ca. 112, 
though without mention of the source, and not in a way to suggest 
that “Ignatius ‘supposed himself to be citing words of apostolic 
authority. Indisputable employments of Luke begin with Basilides 
and Marcion, ca. 135-140; but again without any intimation of 
authorship or authority. To both Basilides and Marcion, Luke is 
simply 16 evayyéAvov, ‘‘the’’ Gospel. Mark’s story of Jesus’ career 
is laid down by both these fuller Gospels as a fundamental outline, 
a phenomenon not easy to account for unless Mark had already 
obtained widespread recognition and standing. The currency of 
Matthew and Luke who thus employ Mark being therefore distinctly 
traceable back to the early decades of the second century, it is no 
longer possible to think of Mark as a second-century work. It had 
already obtained circulation in both Hast and West among the 
churches, and had even attained to a certain measure of quasi- 
canonical authority when Luke and Matthew were written. Had 
this not been the case the practical limitation of all forms of gospel 
story to the outline of Mark, not only as respects contents, but even 
as to order, would be unaccountable. So far as the Church of the 


1 The names ‘‘ Matthew,’’ ‘‘ Mark,’’ ‘‘ Luke,’’ are used traditionally, without 
prejudice to questions of authorship. 

2'The above was written previous to the appearance of the attempt of H. G. 
Jameson (Origin of the Synoptic Gospels, Oxford, 1922) to revive the theory 
of the priority of Matthew favored by the Tubingen School. Mr. Jameson’s 
arguments should perhaps be mentioned but do not seem to call for reply. 


4 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


second century possessed a historical account of the ministry it 
was Mark’s. The dating of evangelic tradition, at least in the form 
of a consecutive account of the sayings and doings of Jesus, is there- - 
fore for us a question of the date of Mark. 

Although among extant works Mark constitutes ‘‘The Beginnings 
of Gospel Story,’’* it may well be that earlier compositions of 
similar character once existed, since this same Gospel shows evi- 
dence of familiarity with preéxisting documents. Among the rest 
it seems to presuppose some form of what is now designated the 
‘‘Second Souree,’’ or by some improperly Q, a symbol which 
should be reserved for certain material which critics for reasons of 
their own convenience find most easily traceable to it. The narrative 
element of this source is rated much higher by the present writer 
than by certain critics who think of it as a mere compilation of 
‘“sacred precepts’’ (Ady), erroneously applying to it utterances 
of Papias regarding our own Gospel of Matthew. But the Second 
Source, whatever its character, belongs not among extant docu- 
ments, but among pre-canonical compilations, and therefore falls 
outside our present consideration. We may also disregard the 
“‘many narratives’’ (dmyyjoes) of Lk. 1:1, no longer existent. 
Among extant Gospels Mark is now admitted to have the priority. 
It marks the beginning of this type of composition so far as our 
direct knowledge goes. It was certainly an ‘‘epoch-making’’ book. 

Apart from the manifest desirability of bringing the extant 
records of the sayings and doings of Jesus into as close a relation 
to the events themselves as trustworthy history will admit, it is 
a matter of no small consequence to the interpreter and the his- 
torian to fix the date of this epoch of the composition of “‘gospels.’’ 
If the great missionary age of the spread of Christianity, at least 
its spread in Greek-speaking territory, is better represented by the 
Pauline Epistles and later writings akin to these Epistles, than by 
compilations of the sayings and doings of Jesus, then the history 
of Christianity must be understood one way. It will have been pre- 
eminently a gospel ‘‘about’’ Jesus, or, as Paul calls it, ‘‘the word 
of the cross.’’ After acceptance of the glad tidings of salvation 
through the risen Christ proclaimed by apostles, converts will have 
been more fully instructed by evangelists and teachers in the moral 
and religious implications of a walk ‘‘after the Spirit of Jesus.’’ 
Gospel first, law afterward. If, on the contrary, the work of an 
apostle of Christ consisted, as the anti-Pauline writer of Clementine 
Homilies, XVII, xix, maintains, in ‘‘proclaiming his utterances”’ 

8A work of this title was published in 1909 through the Yale University 
Press. It is referred to hereinafter as ‘‘the Commentary.’’ 


THE PROBLEM 5D 


and ‘‘interpreting his sayings,’’ then the missionary message will 
have been primarily the gospel ‘‘of’’ Jesus, reported by those who 
had ‘‘companied with him.’’ 

The latter view was evidently maintained by those who at a later | 
date exalted the authority of Peter above that of Paul. Paul, and 
even Peter himself (if we are to judge by the only writing which 
has a plausible claim to emanate from Peter’s own dictation, the 
so-called First Epistle of Peter), conceive the apostolic message to 
be the work of God in Christ, more particularly the story of the 
cross and resurrection. Its content may be judged by the sketch 
in Phil. 2: 5-9, based on Is. 52: 183—53: 12. If anything is strikingly 
characteristic of the Epistles, especially those of earlier date, it is 
the extraordinary indifference of their authors to the sayings and 
doings of Jesus. They imply a doctrine of the Servant exalted after 
a ministry of obedience and suffering, but have not so much as a 
single allusion to any of Jesus’ mighty works, and at most a bare 
half-dozen incidental references to his teachings. 

Here, then, is a deep difference of view concerning the nature of 
the gospel message. And this difference is by no means a mere de- 
velopment of second-century conflict in the Church. For, the epis- 
tolary literature, beginning with the great Pauline Epistles, the 
earliest of which may be dated with considerable precision in 50 
A.D., is all of one type in this respect. In language it is entirely 
Greek, being addressed to the churches of the Greek-speaking world, 
principally in Paul’s mission field. Its early date cannot be ques- 
tioned, but it depends for its apostolic authority on Paul (for even 
First Peter is scarcely more than a transcript of Pauline teaching). 
And Paul had strong reasons for minimizing the importance of the 
gospel ‘‘of’’ Jesus in comparison with the gospel ‘‘about’’ Jesus. 
In Paul’s own phraseology his message told what had been done by 
God through the agency of Christ in restoring the world to His 
favor. 

Significantly enough, even the narrative literature of the Gospels 
in its beginnings is strictly limited to the work of the Servant. It 
does not attempt a life of Jesus, but only tells of the ministry. In 
its present Greek form it is comparatively late; but our canonical 
Greek Gospels unquestionably rest upon Aramaic sources. These 
may well antedate even in written form some or all of the Epistles, 
and in the form of oral tradition the story must have been derived 
in considerable part from eye- and ear-witnesses of the Lord. One 
would think the evangelists, even including the fourth, had made 
Aramaic derivation a test of admitting material relating to the 
ministry. Only a small portion, Acts 15: 36—28:31, has a purely 


6 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Greek basis; and this Greek basis of Second Acts* is not concerned 
with the story of Jesus, but consists of the travel-diary of a com- 
panion of Paul during the last years of his ministry, attached 
by the compiler of the double work Luke-Acts as a supplement to 
his Aramaic tradition. The care with which this compiler has re- 
tained the peculiarities of language of the ‘“We-document’’ enables 
us to isolate it, and thus identify a Greek narrative actually datable 
ca. 49-61 a.p. In this exceptional case a Greek document appears 
among the narrative sources. Our ability to identify it through 
Luke’s retention in it of the first person plural may perhaps justify 
its being called the oldest. This, however, is mere accident. All the 
remainder of Luke’s sources, including even the body of the narra- 
tive to which the ‘‘We-document’’ (in elaborated form) is ap- 
pended, is of Aramaic derivation. At least the basic elements must 
in some form antedate even the earliest of the extant Epistles of 
Paul. The ‘‘We-document’’ is concerned only with later events. 
Gospel story, in both its elements, ‘‘sayings’’ and “‘doings’’ of the 
Lord, is an Aramaic product. The language shows that it did not 
grow up in Pauline territory. 

We must do justice to both conceptions of the gospel message. 
The narrative books, beginning with Mark, naturally attach great 
importance to the record of the sayings and doings: They have a 
twofold object: (1) to ‘‘teach all men everywhere to observe all 
things whatsoever [Jesus] commanded’? (Mt. 28:20), or (2) to 
‘‘draw up a narrative of all things which Jesus began both to say 
and to do,’’ that the reader may “‘know the certainty of the things 
wherein he has been catechized’’ (Lk. 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). Beyond 
this special distinction appears, however, a higher object. Whether 
it be the fourth evangelist or the second ‘‘these things are written 
that [the reader] may believe that Jesus is the Christ.’’ There was, 
then, a tradition of the sayings and doings of Jesus. According to 
the later evangelists it was a very copious one (Lk. 1:1; Jn. 20: 30; 
21:25). Philological evidences prove to us that it circulated first in 
the Aramaic language, our own Gospels being simply translations 
either of earlier gospels or earlier gospel materials. In last resort 
it was, in some of its more primitive elements, the oral or written 
deliverance of actual eye-witnesses. 

The ‘*We-document’’ is admittedly an identifiable, datable work. 
This was Greek, and sub-apostolic. In spite of the freak criticism 
which denies the very existence of Jesus as a historical character, 
we must also assume the currency of Aramaic documents under- 


4 An expression coined by Professor Torrey for the Pauline half of the book 
(Acts 15: 36—28: 31). 


THE PROBLEM 7 


lying our Gospels. This is a positive result of the critical com- 
parison of the Pauline references with the internal evidence of 
Mark. Jesus did really live and die among the people whom Paul 
personally knew. We certainly have elements of authentic Petrine 
narrative in the Gospels. There was, from the very earliest times, 
an oral tradition of Jesus’ sayings and doings. This tradition did 
secure embodiment in written form while still circulating among 
Aramaic-speaking Christians. It carried the story down at least to 
the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles. These facts lend 
a certain support to the contention of the advocates of the gospel 
of Jesus as the essential apostolic message. Nevertheless we cannot 
do justice to Paul, or to the testimony of Peter as cited by Paul, 
or as represented in First Peter, without recognizing that the 
primary and missionary gospel was ‘‘the word of the cross,’’ and 
that the age of composition of gospels such as the canonical was 
secondary. 

Impartial consideration for both aspects of the question com- 
pels us to recognize that the two conceptions of what constituted 
the gospel message persisted for no little time side by side. The 
Aramaic-speaking branch of the Church, less affected by Pauline 
influences, paid greater attention to the preservation and develop- 
ment of the sacred tradition. The Greek-speaking churches, largely 
Gentile foundations tracing their origin to Paul and Paul’s dis- 
ciples, were more concerned with the gospel ‘‘about’’ Jesus. Neither 
party took an exclusive attitude toward the other. The Aramaic 
tradition, especially in the form it assumes in Mark, has been pro- 
foundly affected by Pauline doctrinal tenets. We need only com- 
pare the Prologue (Mk. 1: 1-13) with Col. 1: 13-19, or the doctrine 
of the hiding of the Mystery of the Kingdom (Mk. 4:11f., etc.), 
with the Pauline doctrine of the Hardening of Israel (Rom. 9-11), 
to realize how the whole substance of the Petrine tradition was 
impregnated with this Pauline doctrinal interpretation. And what 
occurs sporadically in the synoptic tradition is carried through 
systematically in John. But if the Aramaic-speaking churches had 
need of Paul’s theology the Greek-speaking churches had greater 
need of the Aramaic records. If they were not to be swept com- 
pletely off their feet after the death of Paul by Gnostic speculation, 
they were compelled, in the words of Polyearp, to ‘‘turn to the 
tradition handed down from the very first.’’ Hence as a first step, 
translation into Greek of Synoptic story, in primary (Markan) and 
secondary (Matthean and Lukan) form. The Pastoral Epistles al- 
ready entrench themselves against the inroads of heresy by appeal 
to “‘the health-giving words, even the words of the Lord Jesus’’ 


8 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


(I Tim. 6:3). Ultimately, at Ephesus, we get the fully Paulinized 
theological or ‘spiritual’ Gospel of John, resolving differences into 
higher unity. 

There was also infiltration on both sides. But the two streams, 
Aramaic and Greek, the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus, 
are separate in origin. It is only in a loose and general sense that 
one can be said to antedate the other. If we are speaking of the 
Aramaic traditions, partly oral, partly written, out of which our 
Greek Gospels have been formed, they must have been in circula- 
tion in Syria before the foundation of the greater Pauline churches. 
If we are speaking of the extant Greek literature known to us 
through the four canonical Gospels, both ancient tradition and 
modern criticism unite to declare it a product of the post-Pauline 
age. 

Eusebius in his Church History (III, xxxvii) speaks of an age of 
propaganda by means of written gospels in the early decades of the 
second century, mentioning Clement, Ignatius, and Quadratus as 
its leaders. Such men, he declares, 


starting out upon long journeys performed the office of evangelists, being 
filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet heard the 
word of faith, and to deliver to them the divine Gospel. 


All that is here implied is the dissemination of our own canonical 
Gospels, supposed by Eusebius to have been composed before the 
death of the Apostles, but he is certainly correct in fixing the date 
95-125 as that of their dissemination in written form. Had even the 
earliest of them been current to any considerable extent in the age 
of Paul the epistolary literature would not be so destitute of any 
intimation of their existence, and so unbeholden to any form of 
gospel story. It does not even occur to Paul that he has any com- 
mission to relate the life and teachings of Jesus. It does not seem 
to have entered the mind of any of those who at a later time address 
the churches in the Greek language. Only the Synoptic writers, who 
take their cue from Mark, and to some extent the Ephesian evange- 
list who presupposes their work,° take an interest in preserving the 
story. All of these depend exclusively on sources which come 
directly or indirectly from the Aramaic, and are limited to the 
single brief period of Jesus’ career. The exceptions only make the 
rule more conspicuous. What Matthew and Luke have to add con- 
cerning the birth and infancy of Jesus is so irreconcilable in content 

5 Even the fourth evangelist is denied by Garvie (The Beloved Disciple, 


1923) to show acquaintance with the Synoptic Gospels. A ‘‘Redactor’’ has 
supplemented from them. 


THE PROBLEM 9 


and so extremely meagre in amount as to confirm in the strongest 
way the many other evidences that the tradition as first formed 
had reference only to the public career of Jesus, ‘beginning with 
the baptism of John.’’ Pseudo-gospels of the later times, such as the 
Protevangelium Jacobi, do not venture to intrude upon the scenes 
thus canonized, but follow Matthew and Luke in limiting their 
supplements to the period of the infancy. 

The establishment of the priority of Mark shows that the proc- 
ess of gospel writing began as an attempt to prove the Church’s 
claims of a divine mission for its Founder by anecdotes of his say- 
ings and doings during the brief period between the baptism of 
John and the crucifixion. The ministry in Galilee and the appeal to 
Jerusalem which had led Jesus to his martyrdom were a necessary 
historical prelude to the story of the cross and resurrection. It was 
only later that the need was felt to supplement this Petrine record 
with large extracts from another source (or sources), wherein the 
content of Jesus’ teaching came much more into the foreground. 
The neglect of this teaching material, much of which must have 
been known to Mark whether as incorporated in the Second Source 
or otherwise, can be explained only by diversity of interest. It was 
not from ignorance, and certainly not through tacit dependence 
on other writers, that Mark omitted the Sermon on the Mount and 
the Lord’s Prayer. 

The writer of the Second Source (which we have no ground 
whatever for regarding as the work of an Apostle, and very strong 
reasons for regarding as unapostolic) has motives quite different 
from Mark’s, and uses his material in a different way. To him Jesus 
is the incarnate Wisdom of God, sent forth to win back an erring 
people. He is rejected, ill treated, but destined to return to those 
who have received him, who, whether Jews or Gentiles, will receive 
the right to be called the children of God. 

In this conception as well as in Mark’s the martyrdom of Jesus 
plays a part. It is the prelude to his world-wide reign. But much 
more emphasis falls upon the message and teaching of the Servant, 
because the Reconciliation with God, which with both evangelists 
is the end in view, is for the Second Source a matter of repentance, 
faith, and obedience. According to the Second Source the receptive 
hearer becomes one of ‘‘Wisdom’s children.’’ According to Mark 
eternal life is to be won solely by following Jesus in the path of 
martyrdom (Mk. 10: 17-22). One may not literally have to be bap- 
tized with his baptism and drink his cup; but one must put his life 
in pledge. “‘He that would save his life will lose it.’’ Only he who 
is ready to lose his life for Christ’s sake and the gospel’s can expect 


10 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


to save it unto life eternal. With this wide difference between Mark 
and the Teaching Source in their respective conceptions of the 
message, it is not surprising that Mark should select his material 
mainly to illustrate the saving work of the crucified Redeemer, and 
the writer of the Second Source expatiate on the teaching, using 
the slenderest possible thread of narrative to suspend upon it suc- 
cessive discourses in which Jesus, as mouthpiece of ‘‘the Wisdom 
of God,’’ sets forth the essential principles of true religion. As 
respects the content of the message Mark is much more of a Paulin- 
ist, though he avails himself of Petrine tradition. 

The later Synoptists, Matthew and Luke, have very diverse 
methods of combining the teaching material of the Second Source > 
with the story of Mark; but neither shows a disposition to depose in 
its favor the ancient Petrine tradition, in its Markan embodiment, 
even as respects ‘‘order.’’ The Second Source was probably older, 
and in some respects certainly more authentic than Mark. But it 
cannot have enjoyed equal prestige. Matthew uses it as a quarry 
from which to extract ‘‘commandments.’’ His Gospel aims to 
‘‘teach all men everywhere to observe all things whatsoever Jesus 
commanded.’’ To this end he constructs his work on the model of 
the Torah, with its five codes in the form of discourses of Moses, 
framed in by narrative introductions. On this plan Matthew brings 
in (after a Prologue devoted to the Infancy) first (Mk. 3: 1—4: 
25), a description of the beginnings at the Baptism of John and in 
Galilee, introducing what we call the Sermon on the Mount (5: 1— 
7:27), for Matthew the Duties of the Disciple. The end of this first 
division of Matthew is marked by a stereotyped colophon (7: 28). 
The phrase actually appeared in this same form and in this same 
position in the Second Source, as we see by comparing Lk. 7:1 
(B text). Matthew makes it also serve a similar purpose at the close 
of each of the remaining discourses, on Duties of the Evangelist 
(ch. 10), Parables of the Kingdom (13:1-52), Duties of Church 
Rulers (ch. 18), and Eschatology (chh. 23-25). In Mt. 26:1, how- 
ever, it leads over to a narrative Epilogue bringing the entire Gos- 
pel to a close. 

Luke’s method of employment of the Discourses is quite different. 
As we might expect from one whose object is to ‘‘draw up a narra- 
tive in order’’ he has interjected the Q material in the form of ad- 
dresses on various occasions, doubtless preserving original data. 
Nevertheless Luke has not hesitated to break up completely the 
order of this source. He follows almost slavishly the order of Mark, 
though not for lack of other narratives (dmyjoes). His story of the 
passion and the resurrection even sets aside that of Mark for the 


THE PROBLEM val 


major part of the material in favor of a Special Source, little (if 
at all) employed by Matthew. The relation of this Lukan Special 
Source to Q and Mark is still problematic. Whether the non-Markan 
narrative material peculiar to Luke was also found in the Second 
Source, and was omitted by Matthew because not acceptable, or 
whether this represents a third element known only to Luke, is a 
moot-point of criticism. This, however, is a matter of importance. 
The ‘‘order’’ of the story of Jesus was a matter of concern to Luke 
(Lk. 1:3). It became a matter of still greater concern in the latter 
part of the second century, when supporters of the Fourth Gospel 
were meeting resistance to its admission to the Canon.® But the 
‘“‘order’’ of Mark was admitted to be zpos ras xpefas. That of Matthew 
is certainly artificial, never coinciding with Luke in its departures 
from Mark. Luke’s own departures from the order of Mark are 
extremely rare, and easily accounted for as conjectural. The Jo- 
hannine order is certainly not more authentic. These phenomena 
could hardly obtrude themselves so conspicuously if the Second, or 
any other early source, had furnished data comparable to Mark’s. 
Accounts of the ministry, or of incidents in it (dmyjoes) were early 
current in considerable numbers (Lk. 1:1). If the order of Mark, 
in spite of its admitted unreliability (and the ancient tradition to 
the fact is no more than could have been inferred from the very 
structure and nature of the work), obtained a practically unrivalled 
predominance, no other narrative can have been known from which 
a more historical sequence could be derived on first-hand, or apos- 
tolic authority. Gospel material, then, must have existed from a 
very early date. Gospels, of the type known to us, begin with Mark. 
The conformation of all subsequent gospels to Mark in respect to 
the narrative outline and choice of material, yes, even as respects 
order, in spite of the known deficiencies of Mark on this score, is 
sufficient proof of the fact. The Fourth Gospel is to some extent an 
exception. But the very character of the exception, and the star- 
tling contrast produced by it, make the general conformation to 
Mark more noticeable. ‘‘Synoptic tradition’’ means Mark, plus some 
supplements, the most important of which are the teaching ma- 
terials derived from the Second Source.’ 

8 Muratorianum line 34 ‘‘per ordinem.’’ 

7 Much needless confusion will be avoided if the reader will accustom him- 
self to distinguish between Q, a mere symbol for the double tradition material, 
and the ‘Second Source’ from which most (though perhaps not all) of this 
Q material was derived, containing also other material not as yet defined. 
Some Second Source material commonly designated Q, such as the Blasphemy 
of the Scribes, is found in Mark also (Mk. 3: 22-30=Mt. 12: 22 ff.=Lk. 
ori tr, ), 


12 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Questions as to the origin, nature, purpose, source, and historical 
reliability of Mark assume therefore an altogether unique im- 
portance for the historian. More particularly its date, whether as 
a whole, or as respects the various elements employed, is a matter 
of great concern. We have seen that this question has a bearing on 
the very nature of Christianity considered as the message committed 
to the Apostles; whether they were sent to proclaim the pure re- 
ligion taught by Jesus, or the work of Reconciliation effected by 
God through Jesus. It is easily apparent also that it has a very 
direct bearing on the general trustworthiness of the Church’s 
record of the sayings and doings of the Lord. When and where was 
this compilation brought out? To what extent is the tradition re-. 
liable which calls it ‘‘Reminiscences (of the Preaching) of Peter’’? 
Are we justified in accepting the primitive tradition which ascribes 
it to Mark, a follower of Paul in his later life, though in his youth 
associated with Peter, and possibly also after the death of Paul? 
To what extent was Mark responsible for the contents? Does ‘‘ac- 
cording to’’ (xarad) mean only ‘‘as Mark used to preach it,’’ or “‘as 
Mark wrote it’’? Was it produced at Rome after the death of Peter 
and Paul, as some second-century advocates declare? Whence was 
its material drawn, and why does it show everywhere the marks of 
derivation from Aramaic documents? Why is it (in the oldest form 
accessible to us) a mere torso, its proper conclusion either wanting 
entirely, or replaced by editorial conclusions compiled or manu- 
factured for the purpose? Why has it duplicate forms of the same 
essential story, and why do so many marks of editorial rearrange- 
ment and explanatory supplement remain ? 

All of these questions are vital to a truly historical judgment of 
gospel story; because gospel story, though by no means at its be- 
ginning, comes first within our ken in Mark. To some of these ques- 
tions an answer has been already attempted in Vol. VII of the 
Harvard Theological Studies entitled ‘‘Is Mark a Roman Gospel ?’’ 
The most vital still remain—the questions of date and composition. 
To know the period within which the compilation itself was formed 
is to hold the key to its character and purpose, especially if we 
are also reliably informed concerning the geographical milieu. If 
in addition we can make some estimate of the interval between the 
oral and the written form of some of these preachers’ anecdotes, 
and the further lapse of time between particular anecdotes and the 
present compilation, the process will be like the application of the 
stereoscopic lens to a photograph. Instead of all features resting in 
one unbroken plane there will be perspective. Foreground and back- 
ground will be distinguishable. Nothing will be discarded, for eriti- 





THE PROBLEM 13 


cism no more destroys the material it works upon than the diffrac- 
tion grating destroys the sunbeam it separates into rainbow tints. 
Dark lines will appear, marking the absorption of certain rays by 
passage through various media on their way to the eye. These may 
be called, if one will, defects of the beam. But he who traces them 
out is not concerned to find imperfections in the ray of sunlight, 
but to use the shadows for what they can reveal. The spectrum 
might be more beautiful without the Fraunhofer lines. But it would 
reveal far less. In hike manner those minute defects which criti- 
cism discovers in the gospel record are the most serviceable of all 
its elements to the student of its transmission. If his attention seems 
to be concentrated upon them it is only as the student of stellar 
physics concentrates his attention upon the dark bands of the spec- 
trum. The dark bands are isolated and brought into the foreground 
for study. For the time being the red and gold and violet may seem 
to suffer neglect. But these have to await their turn. The sunbeam 
loses none of its value or beauty for the world in revealing to the 
scholar the media through which it has passed. 


CHAPTER II 


ACCEPTED DATES AND THE CHALLENGE 
OF HARNACK 


Unt quite recently the views of critics even of widely different 
theological schools were fairly agreed as to the period of the Synop- 
tic writings. Admitting the priority of Mark all attempts of ex-_ 
tremists such as Baur, Keim, and Kostlin to date this Gospel after 
the beginning of the second century were negatived. Use by Mat- 
thew and Luke implied a first-century date for Mark. Even if the 
two later Synoptists were dated (as by some critics) so late as 110- 
115, it was necessary to suppose that Mark antedated them by at 
least a decade. Some found evidence in Luke-Acts of acquaintance 
with the writings of Josephus and therefore placed the Lukan writ- 
ings as late as ca. 100-105. Others, less convinced of Luke’s alleged 
employment of Josephus, dated his work from one to two decades 
earlier. Matthew was usually placed earlier than Luke, but the 
two Gospels are commonly acknowledged to be mutually independ- 
ent. Stanton’ justly argues that if so we must date them at about 
the same period. He even seems ready to endorse the verdict of 
Pfleiderer making Matthew later than Luke. Thus criticism and 
tradition came into conflict. On the one hand employment of Mark 
by Matthew and Luke was admitted. On the other hand stood the 
positive statement of Irenaeus, undoubtedly based on the written 
testimony of Papias (140-150), that 


Matthew, among the Hebrews, published a Gospel written in their own 
language, at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching and founding 
the church in Rome. But after the death (050s) of these Mark also, who 
had been a disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted in writing the 
things which Peter had preached (Haer. ITI, i). 


Primitive tradition on the one side, unquestioned employment by 
Matthew and Luke on the other, thus seemed to leave open for the 
date of Mark only the last third of the first century. It was written 
‘“‘after the death’’ of Peter and Paul. It was current before 
Matthew and Luke, at least one of which must be dated earlier than 
100. Mark was therefore commonly dated in 66 to 90. But for the 
majority of critics the internal evidence of this Gospel seemed to 


1 Gospels as Historical Documents, Vol. II, p. 368. 


THE CHALLENGE OF HARNACK 15 


contribute one decisive argument compelling the adoption of a 
date but little later than the earlier extreme of these limits. The 
chapter on the Doom of Jerusalem and Final Judgment (Mk. 13) 
was generally regarded as implying a date before the overthrow of 
the city in 70 A.p. If so, it was barely possible to find room for the 
composition of the Gospel between the death of the Apostles under 
Nero, after the conflagration in 64 with the resultant outbreak of 
the great Neronic persecution, and the closing scenes of the Jewish 
war. We may take the confident statement of EH. P. Gould in his 
volume on Mark in the International Critical Commentary (1896, 
p- Xvii) as typical of this combination of ancient tradition with 
modern inference from the internal evidence: 

Tradition says that it was written after the death of Peter and Paul. 
There is one decisive mark of time in the Gospel itself. In the eschatological 
discourse attention is called to the sign given by Jesus of the time of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, which leads us to infer that the Gospel was 
written before that time, but when the event was impending. This would 
fix the time as about 70 a.p. 

We shall have occasion later to examine the tradition as regards 
its original form, meaning, and value. We shall also find it needful 
to reéxamine the inference from the Eschatological Discourse, al- 
leged to furnish the ‘‘one decisive mark of time in the Gospel it- 
self.’’ For the present it will suffice to point out how nearly all 
dates fixed by critics for the origin of Mark (and since the admis- 
sion of Mark’s priority by consequence for its satellites also) were 
determined by these two main considerations. Certainly the limits 
thus fixed left nothing to be desired in the way of precision. If 
Mark sat down to write without any delay after the death of the 
Apostles, which Irenaeus, like Dionysius of Corinth and the rest of 
the early witnesses must have dated ‘‘at the same season’’ (mpds rov 
avTov kaipov), in the closing years of Nero (66-68), he would barely 
have had time to finish before the news of the great catastrophe in 
Judea in August, 70, would have reached him. 

Such narrow limits did indeed seem somewhat precarious. There 
were those on the one hand who doubted the testimony of Irenaeus. 
These carried back the date of the Gospel into the lifetime of Peter 
and Paul, and easily obtained the suffrage of the conservative 
majority. On the other hand a few of the bolder critics, such as 
Volkmar, rejected the inference from the Eschatological Discourse, 
dating the Gospel in 73 or later. Most writers, however, were con- 
tent to regard the deaths of Peter and Paul on the one side and the 
fall of Jerusalem on the other as the limits within which the epoch- 
making book must have appeared. 


16 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


The comparative unanimity which formerly prevailed concern- 
ing Synoptic literature, or Mark and its satellites, has of late been 
rudely broken. We may no longer assume the Pauline Epistles to 
be typical of the missionary age of the Church and antecedent to 
the Gospels. The assertion is now made that the Synoptic Gospels 
themselves, or at least those which bear the names of Mark and 
Luke, and not merely their Aramaic sources, fall well within the 
lifetime of Paul. The fulcrum of this overturn in critical opinion 
is found in the so-called ‘‘We-document,’’ the travel-diary of a 
companion of Paul embedded in the later chapters of Acts. The 
writing of this diary was clearly earlier than the death of Paul. If 
it could be shown that the author of the present Book of Acts was— 
the Diarist himself, if in addition it could further be taken as the 
explanation of his omission of any reference to the death of Paul, 
that Acts as a whole was composed before the martyrdom, including 
chapters 1-15, which seem to be based upon Aramaic sources, then 
not only ‘‘First Acts,’’ but the “‘former treatise’’ to which its 
author refers (Acts 1:1), must be of even more primitive date. 
Moreover we must go still further back for the origin of Mark, 
whose employment by the author of the “‘former treatise’’ admits 
of no question. : 

Such is actually the argument of Harnack, the great church his- 
torian of our time. The chain of reasoning may seem precarious, 
since it involves at least two assumptions not easily established: 
(a) that the author of the whole work Luke-Acts was the Diarist 
himself; (b) that he did not merely use these extracts at a later 
date as material for his story of Paul’s career, but made his elabora- 
tion almost at once after the period of ‘‘two years’’ of Paul’s im- 
prisonment at Rome, which is the latest chronological reference of 
the story. The assumptions are far from cogent. Nevertheless no 
small number of scholars have professed adherence to the new 
datings. The number includes not apologists only, such as have at 
all times sought to minimize the possibility of legendary develop- 
ments by bringing the record under apostolic supervision and as 
near as possible to the events. It includes also a group of scholars 
with whom the evidences of translation from Aramaic sources carry 
great weight. Among these may be mentioned Prof. W. C. Allen, 
who, in his article ‘‘ Matthew, Gospel of’’ in Hastings’ Dictionary 
of the Apostolic Age, adopts a very early date for these writings. 
More especially we should name Prof. C. C. Torrey of Yale, who 
advocates a date for Mark in almost its present form, though in 
the Aramaic language, not later than 40 a.p. 

In the case of these scholars there is no disposition to deny the 


THE CHALLENGE OF HARNACK Ee 


presence of legendary accretion. Professor Torrey in particular is 
careful to point out how easily testimony of this kind becomes 
saturated with prodigy and marvel within a very brief interval. 
But the philologians minimize the evidences adduced by the his- 
torical critics. They leave little or no room for literary develop- 
ment in the writings as we have them between the time of their 
first assumption of written form and their incorporation in a com- 
plete Gospel. The philologians insist that the Aramaic originals 
were scarcely distinguishable from our own texts save in the super- 
ficial difference of language. Consequently they regard every indi- 
cation of early date in any part of the material as equally applicable 
to the whole. . 

Exactitude, in the sense of determination of the precise year in 
which the Gospel of Mark in its present form was given out to the 
churches after the slow process of shaping and gathering its con- 
stituent elements was completed, is probably unattainable. For- 
tunately it is not vitally essential. Reasonable certitude, in the 
sense of the fixation of limits not too far apart between which it 
must have appeared, is a matter of grave importance to every 
serious student of Christian origins. This reasonable certitude we 
believe to be attainable. The price to be paid is careful, impartial 
scrutiny of all the evidence available. Great patience will be re- 
quired, and great nicety of historical judgment. But these are 
readily forthcoming where other scientific problems are concerned. 
There is no reason to suppose they will be found wanting in behalf 
of a problem involving the beginnings of the Christian faith. 

Constructive criticism, by which we mean the attempt to attach 
the New Testament writings to their true historical background, 
begins with the effort of the founder of church history of the mod- 
ern type, Ferdinand Christian Baur, to lay a secure foundation 
in the authentic and datable Epistles of Paul, leaving the anony- 
mous and less easily datable narrative books to find their true en- 
vironment in the history as it can be derived from the Epistles. 
A similar process applied to Old Testament literature has yielded 
since Baur’s time results of very great importance. Beginning 
with the datable and acknowledged writings of the Prophets it has 
become possible to disentangle the complex strands of the narrative 
books, until we at last possess a relatively critical and scientific 
conception of Israel’s development. The Old Testament as a whole 
has thus gained enormously in significance, most of all the narrative 
books themselves. It is natural to assume that a similar procedure 
in the New Testament, advancing from the relatively known to the 


18 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


unknown, would yield similar results. The historian should start 
with the primitive datable and indisputably authentic documents. 

Unfortunately Baur and the Tiibingen School were unguarded 
in their inferences from Paul. Later study has made clear that the 
process of development down to the institutions and doctrine of 
the Great Church of the latter half of the second century, which 
comes into full view as we reach the writings of the apologists and 
anti-Gnostic writers, was by no means so simple as Baur supposed. 
Far more was involved than a conflict between the progressive 
Gentile Christianity represented by Paul, and the conservative 
Jewish type represented by Peter. The process involved more than 
a Hegelian resolution of thesis and antithesis into the higher syn- 
thesis of catholic unity. The Petro-Pauline controversy over the 
conditions of Gentile participation, which our Book of Acts intends 
to set forth, though without the admission of any difference between 
the Apostles, really did come to an end in the period covered by 
Luke’s story. The later Epistles of Paul, admitted by Marcion, but 
rejected by Baur because of their preoccupation with another issue, 
the battle against incipient Gnosticism, are genuine. Moreover 
Baur’s attempt to find in the narrative books and the Revelation 
of John reflections of the Petro-Pauline conflict has broken down. 
His interpretations proved to be subjective and fanciful, and his 
inferences from them were hopelessly refuted by discoveries of 
new documents proving his dates in most cases far too late. Under 
pressure from Ritschl, Baur’s own disciples were the first to recede 
from his extreme positions, admitting the authenticity of First 
Thessalonians, Philippians, and Colossians, and abandoning the 
early date for Revelation. Hilgenfeld was probably the last to cling 
to the priority of Matthew. There are certainly none today who 
maintain the priority of Luke to Mark. 

The greatest of the successors of Ritschl was Harnack. In his 
monumental work Die Chronologie der Altchristlichen Interatur, 
1897, the whole problem of dates was worked over again on new 
principles, the author adopting as his starting point 93 a.p. for the 
Revelation of John, a date firmly fixed by ancient tradition. The 
dates established in this work by Harnack are those most widely 
accepted today. Indeed, Harnack’s war-cry in this onslaught on 
the Tiibingen datings has become famous from the use (and misuse) 
made of it since the day it appeared in the Preface to the Chron- 
ologie. Against Baur’s sweeping disregard for ancient testimony, 
leading him to reject such emphatic and definite declarations as 
those of the ancients regarding Revelation in favor of his own in- 
ferences from the contents, Harnack urged critics to go ‘‘back to 


THE CHALLENGE OF HARNACK 19 


tradition,’’ not meaning traditional teaching of the eighteenth or 
nineteenth, but that of the second century. Every word from those 
living within the period when the echoes of actual knowledge could 
be supposed to be not yet wholly silenced should be weighed by the 
critic before attempting conjectures of his own. But the last word 
remains as before with the critic, not with the mere champion of 
tradition. 

The reaction against Tiibingen subjectivity was sane and timely. 
As already stated, the main results of this reaction have been ac- 
cepted with extraordinary unanimity. Harnack’s dates for the Gos- 
pels, as determined in the Chronologie were: Mark ‘‘probably 65- 
70,’’ Matthew (except some later supplements) 70-75, Luke-Acts 
78-93. These dates are still the most widely accepted among scholars. 
They manifestly rest upon an attempt to deal impartially with 
primitive tradition on the one side, internal evidence on the other. 
Harnack was far from claiming finality in weighing the evidence. 
But the method was firmly defined and consistently applied. There 
were to be no more of the extravagances of tendenz-kritik. The 
period 65-93 for the Synoptic writings seemed to meet general 
acquiescence. 

In all this there was no repudiation of the deepest principle of 
- all, the truly basic contribution of Baur to constructive criticism, 
procedure from the known to the unknown by making the greater 
Pauline Epistles the point of departure. But Harnack’s reaction 
against tendenz-kritik was to carry him much further. Beginning 
with Lukas der Arzt (1905), an attempt to show the validity of 
the argument of Hobart for ‘‘The Medical Language of St. Luke,’’ 
and of Sir John C. Hawkins and others for uniformity of vocabu- 
lary and style throughout the Lukan writings, Harnack brought out 
a series of Contributions to New Testament Introduction, which ap- 
proached the problem from a point of view opposite to Baur’s. In- 
stead of beginning with the Pauline Epistles, these Contributions? 
made the principal narrative source, Luke-Acts, the point of de- 
parture. Harnack now believed it possible so far to vindicate the 
ancient tradition regarding ‘‘Luke the Physician’’ by means of 
philology as to correct what he regarded as the one-sided and exag- 
gerated representations of Paul by means of a contemporary narra- 
tive. Luke gave an authentic and original account. He had faults 
of credulity and laxity, but real tendenz was more justly to be 
ascribed to Paul of the two. Thus, for Harnack, the true line of 
approach to the origins was no longer through the acknowledged 


2The series will hereinafter be referred to by number as Contributions, I, 
II, III, ete., using, where possible, the English translation. 


20 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Epistles, but through documents whose validity rested upon the 
critic’s own powers of reasoning. After some wavering Harnack 
at last took the plunge of declaring the entire work of Luke earlier 
than the death of Paul, thus carrying back to a pre-Pauline date 
both the ‘‘former treatise’’ for Theophilus and its sources, the 
Gospel of Mark and the Second Source, if not the Gospel of Mat- 
thew also. Synoptic literature in its present form would thus be- 
come a product of the apostolic age. 

It may well be questioned whether the ery ‘‘Back to Tradition”’ 
has not here carried its champion beyond the goal. It was well to 
rebuke the subjectivity of Tubingen by insisting on full considera- 
tion for the testimony of antiquity before advancing inferences of 
one’s own from the text. But if the reaction be carried to the extent 
of substituting writings whose historical value rests on a tradition 
supported only by one’s own philological enquiry, in place of docu- 
ments so unanimously vindicated as the Pauline Epistles, has not 
subjectivity appeared upon the other side? At least there are many 
who think the Harnack who tried to hold the balance true between 
tradition and critical inference in the Chronologie der Altchrist- 
lichen Lnteratur was a safer guide than the later Harnack, who 
under thé once victorious ery ‘“‘Back to Tradition’’ seeks now to 
rebuild the things which he once destroyed. For the Contributions 
seek to overthrow not merely the ill-considered applications of 
eritical principles made by Baur and the Tubingen School, but 
even the results previously arrived at by Harnack himself on these 
same principles when he sought to do justice both to the claims of 
ancient testimony and also to modern criticism. Indeed, on the vital 
point of the date of Mark they squarely oppose the unanimous 
testimony of ancient tradition. 

Whether Harnack and those who follow his leadership in this 
new dating for the Gospels are correct or not is a matter of no 
small consequence for our interpretation of the entire movement of 
thought and life in primitive Christianity. This we have already 
seen. Some take up the new datings with enthusiasm from the same 
apologetic motives which actuated the fathers of the third and later 
centuries in claiming apostolic authorship for all the canonical 
Gospels at the earliest date made practicable by the accepted state- 
ments current in their time. Others receive them with equal en- 
thusiasm because they accord with views of their own regarding 
the Aramaic sources. Superficial judgments are likely to betray 
those who rely on them at the very point where danger is least 
apprehended. The only way in which a scientific and reliable con- 
clusion as to gospel origins can be reached lies through reéxamina- 


THE CHALLENGE OF HARNACK 21 


tion of both kinds of evidence; first, the testimony of the past as 
apparent (a) in tradition and (b) in its employment of the work 
in question ; second, the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves. 

For reasons already stated the primary question is that of the 
date of Mark. We limit ourselves to this because if Mark was written 
after the death of Peter and Paul the whole foundation for the 
dating of Luke and Matthew within the apostolic age collapses. It 
rested wholly on the plea that the silence of Luke regarding the 
death of Paul must be due to the early date of Luke-Acts, If Mark, 
used by Luke as the basic outline of his ‘‘former treatise,’’ is post- 
Pauline, the postulated cause of Luke’s silence is not the true one. 
Fortunately Mark is not only admitted to be earlier in date than 
Luke or Matthew,* but in addition we have much earlier and more 
reliable testimony regarding its origin than for theirs. We shall 
give our first attention to this testimony, endeavoring to do it more 
exact justice than hitherto, by a more careful analysis of its origin 
and meaning. Afterward we shall turn to the internal evidence of 
the Gospel, endeavoring here also to make a more just and accurate 
valuation. Such passages as have been adduced by others as bearing 
on the question will first be subjected to closer scrutiny. Afterward 
certain other passages may be adduced which appear to ourselves 
worthy of consideration on this score, though hitherto (so far as 
our knowledge extends) neglected. 

8 The exception of Jameson already noted should be borne in mind; also 


that of the group who follow Zahn in maintaining the priority of an Aramaic 
Ur-Matthaeus. 


CHAPTER III 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY AND LATER 
INFERENCE 


THE case of Mark is entirely unique as regards testimony from the 
earlier ages. This Gospel was not only earlier in use than any other 
now extant. It is not only first to be mentioned by name. Definite 
statements regarding its authorship and date and the trustworthi- 
ness of the material are transmitted to us from a period far earlier 
than in the case of any other. This fact is often overlooked, often 
misstated. But it is of great importance in more than one respect. 
To disregard it is to repeat the flagrant error of the Tubingen 
School with reference to Revelation. 

At the very outset the mere uniqueness of the testimony to Mark 
suggests of itself that this Gospel had in reality that epoch-making 
significance claimed for it by us on other grounds. Criticism has at 
last shown that this document took, from a very early date, well 
within the limits of the first century, a commanding position. Both 
in the Hast and West it was treated with extraordinary respect, 
so much so as to survive and eclipse all other forms of the evangelic 
story. Such rivals as it once had (cf. Lk. 1:1) have almost totally 
disappeared. Therefore it is only what we should reasonably expect 
if such tradition as still remains concerning gospel origins should 
at first be concerned exclusively with the appearance of this book. 
Papias, the second-century defender of orthodox Interpretation 
of the Lord’s Precepts’ against Gnostic perversion of their historic 
sense, champion also of strict Palestinian eschatology against Hel- 
lenistic denial of the (bodily) resurrection and judgment, trans- 
mits to us, in the preface of his work the following early tradition 
concerning the origin and historical value of Mark. Eusebius makes 
the extract in his Church History, III, xxxix, 15. 


This also the Elder (Eusebius has just referred to “traditions of John” 
cited by Papias) said: “Mark, who had been the interpreter of Peter, wrote 


1Such was the title of Papias’ book. In Greek, as inscribed on the back of 
the codex, it would appear as Kupiaxdy doylwy éfnyjoews (var. eEnyjoewv) é. The 
term ‘‘precepts’’ (Aéyia) is not the title of a book, nor does it refer to Old 
Testament prophecies, but (as the adjective shows) to the precepts (or ‘‘Com- 
mandments,’’ évrohal, as Papias also calls them) of Jesus. Polycarp also shows 
the same equivalence. 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY 23 


down accurately whatever he remembered of things either said or done by 
Christ, not, however in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower 
of the Lord, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who used to adapt 
his teachings to (his hearers’) needs, not (arranging them) as one who 
designs to make a compend of the Lord’s sayings (or “oracles’”’). Accord- 
ingly Mark was not at fault in thus writing down some things as he recalled 
them. For he was careful for one thing, not to omit any of the things which 
he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. 


Eusebius also reported in the same connection Papias’ statement: 
of his own opinion regarding Matthew. Whether this was given 
in the connection of his statement regarding Mark does not appear, 
nor does Papias give any ground or authority for his belief. 


Matthew, accordingly, wrote (or “compiled’’) the oracles in the Hebrew 

language, and every man translated them as he was able. 
In the original the two extracts are as follows: 

Kal roiro 6 rpecBurepos éheye: Mapxos pev Epunvevr is Ilérpov yevouevos, doa éuvnudvevoer, 
axpiB@s @ypawer, ov uévror raga, Ta Ud TOU Xpicrod  rexOévTa H wpaxGévTa, ovre yap 
HKovce TOU Kuplov, ore mapnKodovOnoev aiT@, tarepov dé, ws Env, Ilérpw, bs mpds Tas 
xpelas érovetro Tas dtdacKadlas, aAN ody woTrep cUYTAkLY T Oy KUpLaK@y ToLtovpmevos AOywr (Var. 
hoylwv), dore ovdev Huapre Mdpxos, ows @va ypdWas ws dmeuvnudvevoer, évds yap érrou7- 
gato mpovo.ay, ToU undév Gv HKovoe wapadirety } Pevoacbal re év avrots, 


On Matthew: 


Maréaios nev ody ‘EBpatéis Stadéxtw Ta Adyia cuveypdwaro (var. suverdéaro), Hpunvevoe 
0 avra ws Hv dUvaros ExacTos, 


The case, then, is not, as frequently but mistakenly alleged, that 
Papias had two traditions, the one relating to Matthew, the other 
to Mark. Concerning Matthew he had no tradition whatever to 
cite, or at least makes no such claim. He seems blandly unconscious 
of the need. To Papias our first canonical Gospel was simply ‘* The 
Gospel according to Matthew.’’ The title by which it was commonly 
known in 150 was the same as today. Earlier, in certain regions 
where its dominance was undisputed, or where no other could be 
thought of, we find it quoted simply as “‘the’’ Gospel. Where other 
gospels were present to rival it, distinction was made by adding 
‘according to Matthew.’’ The addition belongs therefore to the 
later period of this Gospel’s larger circulation. Papias makes a 
statement regarding this work; but unfortunately his statement is 
not referred to any authority, because the need was not felt. Papias 
(unlike Eusebius) was not engaged in research concerning Gospel 
origins for the benefit of antiquarians or critics, but merely in de- 
fending a certain understanding of disputed ‘‘commandments 
(évrodat) delivered by the Lord to the faith.’’ Because in his time 


24 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


undisputed apostolic authority was conceded to Matthew, as an au- 
thoritative ‘‘compend of the Lord’s Precepts’’ (owtadis tév kupiaxav 
Aoyiwv), Papias considered it quite needless to defend his use of 
this Gospel. He therefore limits his statement regarding it to cur- 
rent opinion as expressed in the title ‘‘ According to Matthew,’’ 
reserving his appeal to traditional authority for Mark, a source of 
non-apostolic origin, the use of which might seem on this account 
- to require defence. As regards Matthew he merely offers explana- 
tion of the single point on which the “‘interpretations’’ (<€ppnveiar) 
submitted in his own book might serve as an adjunct even to Mat- 
thew’s apostolic record. He reminds his readers that even this ac- 
cepted and authoritative thesaurus of the Precepts had been ‘‘com- 
piled (cvevrdgaro, var. cvveypdyaro) in the Hebrew language’’ (mean- 
ing the Aramaic); and that no authoritative translation existed - 
(as in the case of Peter’s utterances), so that ‘‘every man trans- 
lated as he was able.’’ 

This utterance regarding Matthew, therefore, is not a tradition, 
like that which Papias quotes from the ‘‘Elder’’ to justify his use 
of Mark. Still less is it a reference to one of the sources employed 
by our evangelists, a so-called ‘‘Logia’’ document which eritics of 
the nineteenth century would be glad to see attested by a writer 
of the second. It is purely and simply a reminder of the nature and 
history of ‘‘the Gospel according to Matthew,’’ given to readers 
as familiar as ourselves with this standard work. For in 150 «A. 
Matthew’s Gospel was known throughout the Church. Papias would 
have it remembered, however, that while Matthew is a “‘compend 
of the Lord’s precepts’’ (the phrase ovverdgaro should be compared 
with ovvragis in the parallel remark concerning Peter that he did 
not utter his discourses as one designing to make ‘‘a compend 
(cvvragis) of the Lord’s precepts’’), and while of course, as apostolic, 
it is entirely trustworthy as to order and completeness, nevertheless 
it exists only in translation, and unauthorized translation at that. 
This leaves abundant occasion for Papias’ own ‘‘translations’’ 
(€punveiar), which he fortifies by means of traditions derived by hin, 
directly and indirectly, from ‘‘the Elders’’ who could report utter- 
ances of the ‘‘disciples of the Lord’’ (the term ‘‘ Apostle’’ would 
be less appropriate where the transmission of teaching is con- 
cerned). These ‘‘disciples of the Lord’’ (not the Elders) include 
Matthew himself, the author of the Gospel, and John, the author 
of the Revelation. The names of these two, as sponsors for the two 
types of teaching defended by Papias, (1) the Commandment and 
(2) its sanction in the coming Judgment, occur together at the end 
of Papias’ list. 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY 29 


Eusebius, who had promised to give his readers all he could find 
in the older writers bearing on the origin of the Gospels, could 
find no tradition in Papias, his best authority, concerning the origin 
of Matthew, but only this statement. 

Let us repeat, for the issue is important and frequently mis- 
understood. The work which Papias had undertaken to prepare, 
and whose occasion and object he is explaining to the unknown 
patron to whom he addresses his Preface, was an Interpretation of 
the Lord’s Precepts, in five ‘‘books’’ (cvyypdupara, perhaps not 
longer than the modern chapter). On the back of the roll or volume 
it Send Kupiakav Aoylwy eEnynoews (OY eEnynoewv)é. For this unknown 
patron, and all the rest of Papias’ Christian readers, there was not 
the slightest question where one should go to seek these precepts 
of the Lord (xvpuxa Aoya), or (as he had previously called them) 
‘‘commandments delivered by the Lord to the faith, which are 
derived from the truth itself.’’ The Apostle Matthew had ‘‘com 
piled’? (cvverdéaro) them, as everyone knew. The heretics were 
wresting them to a false sense, as Polycarp and Irenaeus complain. 
Papias was not attempting to add to their number. He was merely 
attempting to defend the proper (that is, the authentically trans- 
mitted) interpretation (éjyno1s) of them against ‘‘those who have 
so very much to say, and who teach alien (d\Aorpias) command- 
ments.’ 

Let us also repeat that the Gospel of Matthew was not a new or 
unknown work in Papias’ time, such that its use should require 
explanation or defence. It had been in wide circulation since at 
least the time of Ignatius (112-115). For more than half a century 
thereafter it continued to be the primary resort for all church 
writers whenever they desired to appeal to the Lord’s teaching. 
Both the Didaché and Papias’ contemporary Justin refer to it as 
‘‘the’’ Gospel. Always it is treated in this period as the standard 
apostolic authority, quotations being seldom if ever made from any 
other Gospel if Matthew contained equivalent material. When 
Papias describes it as a ‘‘compend of the Lord’s precepts’’ he not 
only reveals what he and his age were supremely concerned to find, 
but defines exactly the real character and purpose of our own 
canonical first Gospel, the very thing which (next to its sup- 
posed apostolic authority) gave it unrivalled supremacy in this 
neo-legalistic age of the Church. Matthew does use the Markan 
outline as a framework for his five bodies of discourse, exactly as 
the Pentateuch uses the older narrative as a framework for the 
Mosaic codes. This evangelist does understand it as his supreme 
mission to ‘‘teach all men everywhere to observe all things what- 


26 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


soever I (Jesus) have commanded you’’ (28:20). It 1s Matthew’s 
idea of salvation to ‘‘keep the commandments,’’ including both the 
old and the new (19:17-19; cf. Mk. 10:17-22). This Gospel is a 
otvraéis TOV KupiakOv Aoyiwv. Therefore the assumption that Papias 
meant some other writing is unwarranted. 

But ‘‘Matthew’’ was not written by Matthew. Modern critics 
have convincing reasons for their disbelief in the apostolic author- 
ship of this comparatively late transcript of Mark. But that does 
not alter the fact that in Papias’ time such was the belief. It is 
attested not only by Papias, but by Justin and by the invariable 
practice in quotation of all their contemporaries. Modern critics 
have also established the independent use by Matthew and Luke of 
a non-Markan Second Source. But Papias knows no more of the 
Second Source than he does of Q. For him, as for his informant 
‘‘the Elder,’’ the precepts of the Lord (Adyia rod Kupéov, xvpiaxd Adyia) 
mean the ‘‘commandments (évroAa/) delivered by the Lord to the 
faith,’’ as Moses delivered the ten commandments (ra déxa Adyia) 
to Israel. They were delivered from heaven, where ‘“‘the truth it- 
self’’ is understood to be treasured up. Hence all attempts to read 
into the simple language of Papias about the Gospel of Matthew 
some obscure and recondite allusion to a document unheard of until 
the nineteenth century fall completely to the ground. Critics may 
have proto-Matthews and proto-Marks to their hearts’ content. But 
to find them in the language of Papas is mere self-delusion. Papias 
gives no tradition concerning the origin of Matthew, but simply 
the statement whose bearing we have explained. He does not ex- 
plain or defend his resort to Matthew for the precepts (Ady) 
which he proposed to interpret. The reason is simple. No tradition 
was called for. His recourse to the standard ‘‘compend’’ could be 
taken for granted. We do not find, therefore, that Papias cites any 
ancient tradition regarding the Gospel according to Matthew. We 
only learn that in 140-150 it already bore the same title as now. 

With Mark the case is entirely different. What Papias describes 
in his reference to ‘‘Mark’’ is simply our Mark, just as his ‘‘ Mat- 
thew’’ is our Matthew. But Mark did not claim to be apostolic in 
the strict sense in which this authority was accorded to Matthew. 
It was understood to be only a transcript of words of Peter trans- 
lated at the time of utterance and afterward written down. This 
Gospel gave comparatively little of the variously interpreted ‘‘pre- 
cepts,’’ being more concerned with ‘‘things done by the Lord.’’ 
In particular its “‘order’’ was very difficult to harmonize with the 
‘(supposedly apostolic) order of Matthew. In Papias’ time the 
Gospel of Mark, main dependence as it had been of our first and 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY 27 


third evangelists, had sunk so low in popular esteem as to be seldom 
quoted. There is doubt whether it is ever quoted when a quotation 
from Matthew, or even from Luke, would cover the point at issue. 
Had Mark been deemed adequate Luke and Matthew might never 
have been written. What wonder that they threw it more and more 
into the shade? Three centuries later Victor of Antioch could not 
discover a single commentary on Mark, though he knew of many 
on Matthew and John, and a few on Luke. The very form in which 
Mark reaches us is a token of this disesteem. Had its original form 
been acceptable the second century would hardly have allowed it 
to circulate ina mutilated edition, either wholly without an ending, 
or supplied with one manufactured for the purpose, or compiled 
out of other Gospels.” 

Resort to so inferior a source in Papias’ time required to be ex- 
plained and defended. Therefore Papias explains and defends his 
use of Mark at considerable length, assuming the characteristic 
tone of an apologist, and appealing (as his custom was) to the 
authority of ‘“‘the Elders.’’ It is the main purpose of the paragraph 
regarding Mark cited for us by Eusebius from the Preface of 
Papias to explain why he (Papias) does not limit himself to Mat- 
thew’s “‘compend of the precepts,’’ but for “‘some things’’ (éva) 
resorts also to a non-apostolic record. His defence consists of a 
tradition (not a mere statement of current opinion) reported to 
him from ‘‘the Elder,’’ presumably the same “‘ Wilder John,’’ from 
whom Eusebius informs us he habitually quoted ‘‘traditions’’ 
(xapaddces). This tradition about Mark Papias accompanies by 
comments of his own both by way of explanation and for inference 
and application. The comments are distinguishable from the tradi- 
tion itself partly by the use of the first person (‘‘as I said’’), partly 
by the repetition in different language of the substance of the testi- 
mony. We may divide the extract into three parts: (1) testimony; 
(2) explanation; (3) inference. The divisions occur at the points 
where an explanatory yép separates (1) from (2), and a ‘‘Thus”’ 
(4ore) introduces (3) the application. 

(1) The Elder said this also: Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, 
wrote down carefully as much as he remembered; (recording) both sayings 
and doings of Christ; not, however, in order. 

2Cf. Sanday, Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 1911, p. 23, ‘‘The moment 
the two longer Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke were written, the shorter 
Gospel of St. Mark was at a discount. In early times it was always the Gospel 
least used and least quoted. The two longer Gospels incorporated the greater 
part of St. Mark; and therefore the possessor of either of them possessed 


practically the substance of St. Mark as well: and so that Gospel fell into com- 
parative, though of course not complete disuse. ’’ 


28 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


The explanations which follow at this point are introduced by 
an interpretative ydp, and use the first person, so that we cannot 
make ‘‘the Elder’’ responsible for more than the above twenty-four 
words. Some even question his responsibility for the clause repre- 
sented by the last four of these (‘‘not, however, in order’’). But 
this seems an excess of skepticism; for in the Greek the clause is 
centrally placed. Moreover the comments which Papias now ap- 
pends take up this particular clause od pevro rége as the expression 
requiring explanation. It is therefore more natural to regard the 
clause itself as part of the testimony. Papias’ comments, on the 
other hand, are very instructive as showing how he understood the 
Elder’s utterance. At the same time they exhibit clearly his motive 
for adducing it. Papias (not the Elder) continues: 


(2) For he (Mark) was not a hearer of the Lord, nor a follower (apyx- 
Kodovdncév ait@, ef. mapnkodAovOnkas Tis IN the previous fragment) ; ; but was 
later a follower of Peter, as I said.® 
And he (Peter) adapted his teachings to the needs (of his hearers), not 
(arranging them) as one who is engaged in making a compend of the Lord’s 
precepts (odx domep cbvTakiy TOv KuptaxGy tovovpevos Noylwy, var. Noywr). 


Papias is here apologizing for the variation of Markan order from 
Matthean. The Elder had criticized the ‘‘order’’ of Mark, perhaps 
from the literary, perhaps from the historical point of view. Papias 
thinks the method followed by Peter in his oral utterances will 
account for the defect. He therefore proceeds to tell (making refer- 
ence to an earlier passage in his own work not included among the 
extant fragments) what the relation had been between Peter and 
Mark. The evangelist had ‘‘followed’’ Peter as interpreter (of his 
preaching). Under these circumstances, he points out, Mark could 
not have the true order without some further enquiry; because 
Peter did not arrange the material as he would have done if plan- 
ning a “‘compend of the Lord’s precepts’? (otvragis ray Kkvpixdv 
Aoyiwv). Papias fails to explain why this further enquiry was not 
made by Mark, but he could hardly have thought of Peter enter- 
taining the purpose of ‘‘compiling a compend of the precepts’’ had 
this idea not been suggested by the nature of the work he ascribes 
to Matthew under substantially identical terms (cvverdgaro ra Ady). 
Moreover we should observe that the explanatory clause (2) does 
not give us words of the Elder. Nor does the Elder make any refer- 


8 The passage in which Papias made this statement is no longer extant, but 
has been conjectured independently and on good grounds by Lightfoot and 
Zahn to have been an inference based on I Pt. 5: 13; cf. Eusebius, H.E. II, xv., 
and III, xxxix. 15. Harnack in ZNTW. III (1902) ‘BY. : ‘Pseudopapianisches? , 
disputes this; but his criticism of Zahn is only partially gy gt 


eer 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY 29 


ence to the compilation of precepts (Ady), but only to the con- 
tents of Mark as a miscellany of sayings and doings (9 A«xGévra 
n mpaxGevra). It is from some other quarter than the Elder’s testi- 
mony that the idea of ‘‘a compend of the Lord’s precepts’’ is im- 
ported. 

Even the basis for Papias’ explanation of the relations between 
Mark and Peter does not appear to be the Elder’s testimony. It 
seems to be Papias’ own idea, whether derived from I Pt. 5:13 
or elsewhere. He admits (such being the Hlder’s testimony) that 
Mark could not put the material of his Gospel in true (chronologi- 
eal) order. This was because he had not been an eye-witness. Peter 
might have supplied the lack, but had not done so in his preaching, 
because he considered the needs of his hearers rather than the 
possible wishes of an ‘‘interpreter’’ bent,on writing a Gospel. He 
would have supplied the ‘‘order’’ later if Mark had asked it—and 
here occurs a logical lacuna which later reporters of the tradition 
fill out in accordance with their predilections—but either Mark 
did not or could not obtain access to him. This paragraph, then, is 
Papias’ explanation of the defect which the Elder reports in Mark 
but fails to explain, the fact that his Gospel shows neither the 
completeness nor the systematic order which one would expect in 
the compiler of a owragis rGv xvpiaxGy Aoyiwv. Irenaeus, depending 
on Papias, infers that at the time of writing Peter was no longer 
living. But the inference is not unavoidable. Clement and later 
writers find explanations more acceptable. 

After explanation follows application. As the Q. E. D. of Papias’ 
defence, to show that in spite of omissions, in spite of incorrect 
order, in spite of the lack of direct apostolic authority, one could 
not afford to neglect Mark, Papias now reverts to the testimony of 
the Elder as originally cited, restating it, however, in terms more 
explicitly adapted to his purpose: 

(3) Accordingly Mark committed no error in thus recording some things 
(ua; the Elder had said dca éuvnpdvevoer) as he recalled them. For he 
made it his one care to omit nothing that he had heard (the Elder had said 
“all that he heard”), and to set down nothing falsely (the Elder had said 
“he wrote accurately”). 


It will be apparent from the above analysis of the Papias frag- 
ment that application of the stereoscopic lens is quite as needful 
in patristic extracts as in the Gospels themselves. It is vital to his- 
torical interpretation of the testimony to distinguish foreground 
from background, the testimony itself from what the reporter is 
attempting to prove from it. Here the vital distinction is that 


30 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Papias has all the time Matthew in his mind’s eye; whereas the 
Elder’s words presuppose no document of any sort beyond Mark 
itself. For Papias the question is: Should Mark be allowed standing 
comparable to Matthew’s? He needs for his Interpretations a ‘‘com- 
pend of the Lord’s commandments’’ containing all of them, in 
proper order, without error or ambiguity of expression. Matthew 
(he thinks) falls short of this ideal in only one respect—the ambi- 
guity incident to unauthorized translation. Mark falls short in 
several respects; still, so far as he went, he ‘‘committed no error.’’ 
Thus Papias. 

The original testimony of the Elder, on the other hand, when 
considered by and for itself alone, has no side glance at Matthew, 
nor indeed at any “‘compend”’’ of any sort whatever. In itself it is 
simply a judgment passed upon the work ascribed to Mark as any > 
person qualified by knowledge of ‘‘the living and abiding voice’’ 
of tradition derived from the disciples of the Lord would naturally 
pass it. Since the Elder believed the alleged ‘‘Memoirs of Peter’’ 
to be ‘‘according to Mark,’’ as represented in the title, he would 
approve the contents in general; but for the sake of his own au- 
thority and that of the body of ‘Elders the disciples of the 
Apostles’’ he would surely not fail to point out that they were in- 
complete, and (as the author’s loose agglutination of anecdotes 
makes evident to the least expert observer) not a systematic pre- 
sentation such as might be expected from one of the Twelve. As 
Zahn points out,* his criticism of Mark’s ‘‘order’’ is not relative but 
absolute. He does not compare Mark with some other gospel, but 
simply notes its loose and subjective character in respect to the 
sequence of events. 

If we thus place ourselves at the point of view of Papias, as he 
defends his right to go beyond the ‘‘compend’’ of Matthew for the 
‘““precepts’’ he proposes to interpret, distinguishing the argument 
of the lawyer from the testimony of the witness, it will be obvious 
that Papias takes the Elder’s acquaintance with this apostolic 
‘“compend’’ for granted. Papias is, of course, mistaken in thinking 
Matthew to be apostolic. So far as anything actually quoted from 
the Elder goes to show, he appears to be mistaken also in assuming 
the Elder to be acquainted with the work. The Elder may or may 
not have known the Gospel of that name. All that can reliably be 
deduced from his testimony may be paraphrased as follows: ‘‘The 
book submitted to me (the Elder) purports to be Reminiscences of 
the Preaching of Peter (the work is referred to by Justin in 152 
A.D, as Peter’s Memotrs, ’Aropvnpovetpara Ilérpov ) given out under the 


4 Introduction to New Testament, II, p. 439. 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY 31 


hand of Mark. This I can endorse. Mark really was associated with 
Peter. He has done all that could be expected under the circum- 
stances.’’ The Elder’s commendation of the Gospel is therefore 
sincere and genuine. Papias is justified in citing it as such. But it 
is guarded. It endorses the work; but it goes little beyond the 
obvious. The competence of Mark’s rendering of Peter’s words into 
Greek would be clear from his career, even if it were not involved 
in his very surname Médpxos. On the other hand the unknown appli- 
cant who submits the book (Papias?) is also cautioned by the Elder 
against an overestimate of its value. He should not imagine that 
these mere miscellanies of words and deeds supply an adequate 
knowledge of the ‘‘commandments delivered by the Lord.’’ Books 
have their use. One may be ‘‘profited’’ by their reports of what 
Peter related, whether of sayings or doings of the Lord. But ‘‘not 
so much’’ as through the teaching of the ‘‘successors of the 
Apostles.’’ To learn the real meaning of the sacred tradition one 
should apply at headquarters. Those who perpetuate the unbroken 
chain of teaching handed down in the mother-church by men 
who can report actual utterances of the Lord’s own disciples are 
the safest guides. The “‘living’’ voice, ‘‘abiding’’ at its original 
seat, in the original language, should have the deciding influence 
" in questions of faith and practice. Such is Papias’ caution to those 
who depend on ‘“‘books.’’ He probably echoes the Elders in these 
phrases. It is important to notice the reservations of the witness 
(John the Elder) as well as the affirmations for the sake of which 
the lawyer (Papias) is appealing to his testimony. Professors who 
are called upon by students for an estimate of books which appear 
in their own field will appreciate the tone of the Elder’s eee 
ment of Mark. 

The explanation of Papias’ apparent disesteem for ‘‘books’’ as 
compared with oral tradition, while at the same time he accepts 
the Gospel of Matthew as the writing of an Apostle, lies in his 
intermediate position. He himself unavoidably depends on books. 
The Elders did not. Papias does not aim to accumulate ‘*command- 
ments.’’ The content of gospel precept is for him already practically 
fixed. He deals with the ‘‘interpretation’’ of an existing collection, 
the compend (owraés) of Matthew. But the Church applies these 
precepts in one way, the Gnostics in another. In particular the 
eschatological teachings are in most heated debate. Papias has a 
book purporting to have been “‘revealed to John while yet in the 
body and given out to the churches.’’ He held that this statement 
of Rev. 1:10 f. was ‘‘trustworthy’’ i(déidrurros). He also had ‘‘tradi- 
tions of the Elders’’ bearing on eschatology. One in particular on 


32 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the great fertility of Palestine in the Coming Age the Elders re- 
lated in the form of a discourse of Jesus, reported by Apostles, 
Iscariot demurring. Irenaeus willingly accepts this ‘‘somewhat 
mythical’’ story, though Eusebius balks at it, maintaining that 
Papias took literally the ‘‘apostolic accounts’’ which were spoken 
‘‘symbolically.’’ But Papias does not stand in a first-hand relation 
to the Lord’s utterances. He cannot be supposed so lacking in com- 
mon sense as to prefer an indirect report of what the Apostle John 
had said to John’s own written words (for so he esteemed them) 
in the Book of Revelation. Neither does he prefer oral tradition as 
to what the Apostle Matthew had said to what he regards as the 
actual written words of Matthew in the Gospel. Papias stands a 
stage further away than ‘‘the disciples of the Apostles.’’ The doc-. 
trinal issues at stake in his time are two. First, a real Jerusalem 
in which the saints should dwell a thousand years with the Lord. 
Far be it from him to interpret with Eusebius ‘‘symbolically.’’ On 
this issue Papias, like Justin, sides with the ‘‘ Apostle John, to 
whom was granted the Revelation.’’ Second, ‘‘Commandments of 
the Lord’’ interpreted as the Epistles of James and Jude require, 
‘a new law,’’ as Barnabas calls them, versus an interpretation 
offering forgiveness of sins by sheer grace on the basis of faith only. 
On these two issues Papias holds with Matthew, with James and 
Jude, and with the Elders the disciples of the Apostles in Jeru- 
salem. Like Polyearp, his comrade in the struggle, he would ‘‘turn 
to the tradition handed down from the very first.’’ Like Polycarp 
he may have actually conversed with the Elders in person, besides 
indirect enquiries at a later time from those who came his way. 
Perhaps he had no direct contact with the Jerusalem group. Never- 
theless, his disesteem for ‘‘books’’ can only be a reflection of the 
overweening dependence on tradition characteristic of the ‘‘suc- 
cessors of the Apostles’’ and kindred of the Lord at Jerusalem, as 
it appears in the fragments of Hegesippus. The difference between 
Papias and the Elders, however, lies in the fact that while Papias 
has at least two books (Matthew and the Revelation of John) and 
probably three (he also ‘‘used testimonies from the (first) Epistle 
of Peter’’) which he regards as written by actual ‘‘disciples of the 
Lord,’’ we have no evidence that the Elders were acquainted with 
any of these, or made any exception whatever in their disregard 
for ‘‘books.’’ For them there was but one Book, ‘‘the Law and the 
prophets’’; and one Interpreter, ‘‘the Lord.’’ 

The distinction made above between the original testimony of the 
Elder, and the later interpretation put upon it by Papias, is in- 


PRIMITIVE TESTIMONY 33 


dispensable to any scientific enquiry. Assumptions of knowledge on 
the part of the Elder, or still more on the part of Papias, of a docu- 
ment employed in common by. Matthew and Luke, symbolized in 
modern criticism by the designation Q, are gratuitous and mislead- 
ing. Safe advance requires that we be merciless in challenging in- 
ferences from the Elder’s testimony, beginning with those made by 
Papias himself; for the real basis of such inferences is not always 
the testimony in itself considered, so much as the presupposition 
of the critic. We are not entitled to make any presuppositions what- 
ever with regard to the Elder’s witness. We simply learn that the 
Gospel of Mark, just as we now know it, was brought to his atten- 
tion early in the second century or late in the first, and that he 
gave it commendation with the reserves we have specified. Such 
guarded commendation is precisely what we should expect from a 
representative of ‘‘the Elders the successors of the Apostles.’’ And 
such was ‘‘the Elder John,’’ even were there no acceptance for 
our conjectural identification of him with the ‘‘ Elder John’’ men- 
tioned by both Eusebius and Epiphanius as head of the church in 
Jerusalem. The Elders at Jerusalem, as Hegesippus informs us, re- 
garded themselves as the guardians and champions of orthodoxy. 
As Papias shows, they relied upon their possession of unbroken 
- (Coa), indigenous (uevotca) tradition of the teaching of the original 
disciples. In the section of the fragment set off above as secondary 
by a prefixed (2), as in the statement regarding Matthew, we are 
not listening to the Elders, the champions of oral tradition, ca. 100. 
We are listening to the voice of the users of our own Greek Gospels 
in the age of Justin Martyr. When Papias in these two paragraphs, 
whether in closer or remoter connection, twice uses the expression 
‘“ecompend of the Lord’s precepts,’’ saying in the former that Peter 
adapted his accounts of the Lord’s sayings and doings to the needs 
of his hearers, “‘not as one who makes a compend of the Lord’s 
precepts,’’ and in the latter that Matthew did ‘‘make a compend 
of the Lord’s precepts’’ our interpretation should be governed by 
our knowledge of what was then accepted opinion regarding the 
two canonical Greek Gospels of Mark and Matthew respectively. 
As sources for the ‘‘commandments’’ Matthew and Mark were 
Papias’ only apostolic ‘‘compends;’’ Mark as representing Peter. 
For this fact he appealed to ‘‘the Elder.’’ Mark did give a faithful 
report of Peter’s teaching. Other statements contained in Papias’ 
explanatory clause (2), such as the reference to Rome as the place 
where Peter had been associated with Mark (if it be indeed from 
Papias that this is derived by the later tradition), and the assump- 
tion that the defect of ‘‘order’’ mentioned by the Elder was chrono- 


34 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


logical (which may or may not be correct), have no further au- 
thority than Papias’ own opinion. 

There is reason to believe that Roman provenance was probably 
asserted by Papias.® But if so it was asserted on the authority not 
of the Elder, but of I Pt. 5:18. Indeed even the particular term 
‘“interpreter’’ in clause (1) must be subject to some suspicion, since 
it is Papias, not the Elder, who seems to be concerned with the 
differences of language, speaking not only of the ‘‘translation’’ of 
Matthew but of his own ‘‘renderings’’ (épuyveiar) of the precepts. 
What the Elder attested was doubtless the association of Mark with 
Peter. We may, perhaps, be doing better justice to the facts if 
mentally, in listening to the Elder through Papias’ report, we place 
the emphasis on the proper name (‘‘Peter’s interpreter was 
Mark’’), and regard the choice of terms which describe the nature 
of the association as dictated by Papias’ preoccupation with the 
difference of language. 

With all these precautions against importation of later precon- 
ceptions into the testimony of the Elder (and past experience 
demonstrates their need) the tradition itself has an importance 
corresponding to the epoch-making work to which it relates. The 
Elder’s statement is an altogether unique testimony, on which all 
subsequent tradition would appear to have been based. It is a 
verdict pronounced upon the first known example of the genus 
Gospel. It is pronounced on behalf of the Elders, the disciples of the 
Apostles, guardians and champions of the oral tradition. We shall 
have further enquiry to make as to its precise bearing and signifi- 
cance. 


5 Bacon, in Harvard Theological Studies, VII (1919). 


CHAPTER IV 
THE DATE AND MEANING OF PAPIAS 


THE date of composition of Papias’ Hxpositions affects to some 
extent the conclusions thus far reached. Fortunately a decade or 
so of difference will not be of vital consequence. Nevertheless the 
question must be considered, and the possible effect of difference 
allowed for. 

Hitherto we have proceeded on the assumption that the date 
fixed by Westcott and adopted by Stanton in his Gospels as H1s- 
torical Documents (Vol. I, p. 52) is approximately correct. This 
date, 140-150, is shghtly earlier than that worked out by Harnack 
(145-160), but later than some defenders of the church tradition 
would accept. Moffatt (Introd. p. 185) sums up the case as follows: 


As Papias was an dpxaios dvijp to Irenaeus, and as, on the other hand, 
he looked back to his connection with the oral tradition of the presbyters 
as an old episode when he composed his book, the date of that volume can- 
- not be put much earlier than c. A.D. 120. If the De Boor fragment (7.u.U.v. 
2. p. 170), which makes him mention people who, after being raised from 
the dead by Jesus, lived “till the age of Hadrian,” is really a quotation, the 
date would have to be carried down at least another decade; but it is not a 
quotation (probably a mere blunder for “Quadratus” on the part of Philip 
Sidetes, who makes the excerpt from Husebius), and the terminus ad quem 
for this writing’s composition is not later than c. A.D. 160. It may be dated 
in 140(5)-160 (Harnack), 140-150 (Westcott), 130-140 (Lightfoot), or 
ce. 125 (Zahn). 


Bartlet, resting upon the close affinity of Papias with Polycarp, 
whom Irenaeus calls a ‘‘comrade (€raipos) of Papias,’’ goes to the 
extreme of dating the work as early as 115. Against this should be 
set the consideration which was decisive with Lightfoot: Defence 
cannot be placed before attack. Papias’ polemic references in his 
preface to certain false teachers who ‘‘report alien command- 
ments,’’ and others ‘‘who have so very much to say’’ undoubtedly 
recall the expressions of Polycarp’s epistles about the ‘‘false teach- 
ers,’’ and the ‘‘vain talk of the many.’’ Both bishops are alarmed at 
the inroads of those who ‘‘pervert the precepts of the Lord (74 Adyua 
Tov kupiov) to their own lusts,’’ and those who ‘‘deny the (physical) 
resurrection and the judegment.’’ Both look to ‘‘the tradition 
handed down from the first’’ as the principal resource of the 


36 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Church in combating the Gnostic heretics. Both had probably had 
personal contact with the Elders. As respects ‘‘the wholesome 
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus’’ both breathe the atmos- 
phere of the Pastoral Epistles and Jude. 

But Papias is later than Polycarp by as much as systematic 
authentication of church tradition lags behind sweeping denials 
of its credibility. Papias joins Polycarp in denouncing the per- 
verters of the commandments, but goes beyond him in the special 
emphasis he lays upon the rewards and penalties of the world to 
come, much as Second Peter goes beyond Jude. Papias is a pro- 
tagonist in the long struggle of the chiliasts of the second century 
against those ‘‘false Christians, unworthy to bear the name,’’ whom 
Justin denounces for maintaining that ‘‘when we die our souls 
are taken to heaven.’’ The emphasis of Matthew upon (1) the Pre- 
cepts, and (2) the Judgment to come, in which those who have 
wrought ‘‘lawlessness’’ will be cast into the outer darkness, while 
the doers of good works enjoy the kingdom prepared for them 
from the foundation of the world, is exactly to the taste of Papias 
and his age. We know that Irenaeus thought of him as a companion 
in arms of Polycarp, even making both to be appointees of the 
Apostle John, and hearers of ‘‘other Apostles in Asia.’’ We know 
also that Eusebius, who made a careful study of Papias’ work for 
the very purpose of correcting the misconception of Irenaeus re- 


garding the association with ‘‘John,’’ also thought of Papias as / 


mainly responsible for the error of the chiliasts, ‘‘as for instance 
Irenaeus, and whoever else they were who declared that they held 
like views.’’? We must therefore group Papias not only with Poly- 
carp as a champion of the tradition of the Elders, but also with 
Justin, and Melito of Sardis, and with his own immediate successor 
in the see of Hierapolis, Claudius Apollinarios, in the battle for 
chiliasm. In fact we have already presented it as the true explana- 
tion of the grouping of ‘‘John’’ and ‘‘Matthew’’ at the end of 
Papias’ list of disciples whose words were cited by the Elders, 
rather than in their usual sequence, that John and Matthew, as 
authors respectively of the Revelation (not the Gospél) and the 
Compend of the Precepts (that is, our present Matthew) were his 
chief apostolic authorities against the Gnostic deniers of the resur- 
rection and judgment and perverters of the precepts. 

These considerations are general. We have here to consider that 
Papias was the great defender of the received interpretation of the 


1Cf. Ignatius ad Eph. ix, ‘‘arrayed in the commandments (éyTodais) of Jesus 
Christ ;’’ xvi, heretics ‘‘go into the unquenchable fire,’’ ete. 


a 


DATE OF PAPIAS 37 


precepts, by appeal to ‘‘the living and abiding voice’’ of tradition 
in the mother-church, against the unauthorized and ‘‘alien’’ sense 
imposed upon them by the Gnostics. 

But the conflict which had already begun in Polyearp’s earlier 
life (115) has in Papias reached the literary stage. As regards 
perversion of the Lord’s precepts we know of two works of alarm- 
ing influence from Gnostic quarters, which directly challenged the 
Church’s interpretation at about this time. At Alexandria, ca. 135, 
Basilides had published a treatise of this kind in no less than 
twenty-four books. It was called ’Egyyyrua, and its author used the 
Gospel of Luke as a basis, claiming connection with Peter through 
a single link, one Glaukias, represented to have been an “‘interpre- 
ter’’ (€punveds) of Peter. Basilides had an ally in the West more 
formidable than himself. At Rome but a few years later (the year 
140 can be fixed with considerable precision as the proper date) 
appeared Marcion’s reconstructed form of Luke, the same Gospel | 
employed by Basilides. It was accompanied by another work called 
Antitheses, in which Marcion explicitly brought the charge against 
the Church of having interpolated and otherwise garbled the teach- 
ing of Jesus and of Paul. It is to this period of polemic that Papias 
. belongs. According to Eusebius the flame of chiliasm in 150-200 was 
largely kindled from his Exegeses. Judging by this as well as by its 
polemic against the false and wordy misinterpreters of the Gospel 
record, the place for the writing would be shortly after 140, a date 
when the traditions of the mother-church in Jerusalem were no 
longer obtainable at first hand, because in the insurrection of the 
Jews in 135, and under the subsequent edict of Hadrian banishing 
all circumcised persons from the vicinity of Jerusalem, the original 
body of ‘‘the Elders the successors of the Apostles’? had been 
scattered throughout the Christian world. This is the fitting junc- 
ture for Papias’ Hxegeses. They appear to have been known to 
Justin, writing at Rome in 152. On the other hand Papias himself 
seems to be replying to accusations brought against the Church’s re- 
port of the ‘‘commandments”’ in 135-140. At this date the body of 
witnesses at Jerusalem on whom the Church had been wont to rely 
had been scattered and destroyed. Papias makes much of his former 
relations with them. Such is the evidence for dating the Hxegeses 
of Papias in 140-150. 

But even were we to adopt the extreme early date for Papias’ 
work proposed by Bartlet, making it practically contemporary 
with the Epistle of Polycarp, and extending the period of his ‘‘com- 
radeship’’ with the latter to full forty years (for Polycarp survived 


38 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


until 155), the case for primitive tradition regarding the date of 
Mark would not be materially altered. To account for the affinity 
of Papias’ preface with Polycarp’s epistle, and even for the use of 
the same catch-words of ecclesiastical polemic, it is not necessary 
to suppose that both were written within the same decade, any more 
than it is necessary to suppose that Papias was of the same age as 
Polyearp in order to do justice to Irenaeus’ statement that they 
were ‘‘comrades.’’ But let it be supposed that the Interpretations 
actually do go back to the period shortly after Ignatius and the 
Epistle of Polycarp, accounting as best we can for the fact that in 
the meantime, in this Pauline region, the figure of Paul has already 
so largely given way to Peter and Matthew and John (the Apoca- 
lyptist) as chief apostolic authorities; still we should be obliged to. 
regard the testimony quoted from ‘‘the Elder’’ as belonging to 
about the same period, the last decade of the first century, or the 
first of the second. 

Against a date for the Elder within the limits of the second cen- 
tury stands only the clause characterizing ‘‘ Aristion and the Elder 
John’’ in the fragment as ‘‘disciples of the Lord’? (of rot xv pabyrat). 
As Lightfoot admits, this phrase embodies a “chronological diffi- 
eulty.’’ Could one or more have actually survived until so late a 
date, who would be known to the Church as ‘‘disciples of the 
Lord,’’ though unknown, or almost unknown, outside this single 
passage? The supposition is difficult. But the clause itself is by no 
means textually certain. True, its entire omission from the fourth- 
century Syriac Eusebius is probably owing only to perception of 
the difficulty. But the difficulty is real. On the one hand assimila- 
tion in transcription of the clause of rod xi pabyraé to the identical 
clause in the preceding line, where it is applied to the Apostles, is 
extremely easy. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to sup- 
pose that Papias would use the very same term which he had just 
applied to the Apostles themselves, to describe these relatively 
obscure individuals; especially as the apparent object of the clause 
is to distinguish the two groups. We are therefore driven to the 
conjecture that the meaning was that Aristion and John were dis- 
ciples of the Apostles, not of the Lord himself. This meaning has 
been brought out in various proposed emendations, but that which 
offers the least violence to the received text is one which since its 
proposal by the present writer in JBL. XVII. 176 ff. has received 
some important approval (cf. E. Abbott s.v. ‘‘Gospels’’ in Enc. 
Bibl. I, col. 1815). The proposed emendation would substitute only 
the letters +o for «i making the clause read ‘‘the disciples of 


DATE OF PAPIAS 39 


these’’ (that is, the Apostles named), instead of “‘the disciples of 
the Lord.’’ Aristion (of whom absolutely nothing is known)? and 
the Elder John would then be the successors in Papias’ time of the 
group who are known to later writers as “‘the successors of the 
Apostles’’ (duddxo tov drooréAwv) in Jerusalem. In Acts the same 
eroup appear several times (11:30; 15:22 f.; 21:18) in similar 
relation to the Apostles and ‘‘kindred of the Lord.’’ Loyalty to the 
better attested text of Eusebius requires us to leave open the possi- 
bility that ‘‘the Elder’’ was really known as a ‘‘disciple of the 
Lord,’’ which could only mean that he was so long-lived as to have 
actually conversed with Jesus in the flesh. But it is more probable 
that in Eusebius’ time (if not already in Irenaeus’) the text of 
Papias had suffered this slight alteration, and that the Elder John 
was really a survivor, along with the unknown Aristion, of the 
group of Jerusalem ‘‘elders’’ known as ‘‘successors’’ or ‘‘disciples’’ 
of the Apostles. We may even hold that he was the same ‘‘John’’ 
of Jerusalem who is mentioned by both Eusebius and Epiphanius 
midway of the Jerusalem succession between 62 and 135. If so, the 
date of his death will not be far from the year 117, where it is 
fixed by Epiphanius. True this date is probably mere conjecture 

. due to the fact that this was a year of martyrdoms in Jewish tradi- 
tion,* and that ‘‘John’’ was counted a martyr. But even if Epi- 
phanius is only guessing (as so often), he cannot be very far astray. 
The testimony of the Elder must be placed approximately at the 
turn of the century. 

Besides the question of the date of the Elder’s testimony we have 
also to consider its meaning, with special reference to his criticism 
of Mark’s ‘‘order.’’ For while Papias implies by his contrast be- 
tween the opportunities of Mark as a follower of Peter, and those 
of an eye-witness such as Matthew, that he is contemplating chrono- 
logical order, this is by no means certain concerning the Elder. 
For it does not appear that Papias’ ‘‘traditions of John’’ were all 

derived at first hand. On the contrary he expressly says he learned 
“from those who came his (my) way what Aristion and the Elder 
| John were saying.’’ His claim of early direct association with ‘‘the 

2The Aristo of Pella named by Eusebius shortly after (H.E. IV, vi. 3) is a 
heathen writer. The gloss before Mk. 16: 9-20 in the Edschmiazin Codex, ascrib- 
ing the Appendix to ‘‘The Elder Aristo,’’ is a conjecture based on misunder- 
standing of Moses of Chorene. See Bacon s.v. ‘‘Aristion-Aristo’’ in Hastings’ 
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. 

8““The slain of Lydda’’ (in the polemos of Quietus, 117 A.D.) are frequently 


mentioned in the Talmud with reverential praise (Pesikta 50a, Baba Bathra 10b, 
Ecclus. R. TX. 10). 


40 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Elders’’ (€ua0ov zapa trav tpexButépwv probably implies this) does not 
therefore exclude the possibility of his misunderstanding them on 
a point of subordinate importance. 

We have not yet fully determined the point of view of Papias 
himself on this question of the ‘‘order.’’ He undoubtedly has some 
written standard in mind (which cannot be assumed regarding the 
Elder) and we have thus far taken it to have been the Gospel of 
Matthew. But it has been held that Papias’ standard of ‘‘order’’ 
may have been the Johannine. No less a critic than Wernle has 
committed himself to this view, and it has received endorsement 
from Moffatt in his Introduction, to mention no others. It becomes 
incumbent upon us, therefore, to defend our adoption of the older 
view, which assumes that Papias at least (the question of the 
Elder’s standard is secondary) regarded Matthew as supplying the 
true, apostolic, and authoritative order of events in Gospel narra- 
tive, departure from which must be explained, as in the case of 
Peter, ‘‘who uttered his teachings as occasion required, and not as 
one who is engaged in making a compend of the Lord’s discourses’’ 
(ds mpos Tas xpeias erouetro Tas didacKkadias, GAN’ ody woreEp ovvraéiv TOV 
KUpAKOV TroLovpevos Adywv, Var. Aoyiwv). This literary work Papias as- 
eribes to Matthew (cvverdgaro ra Adyia). 

The expression ‘‘a compend of the Lord’s discourses,’’ used by 
Papias to describe the literary work an Apostle might be expected 
to have in contemplation, cannot in the age of Papias, however early 
his work be dated, have any other composition in view than our 
own Gospel of Matthew. From the time of Polyearp and Ignatius 
(115) down to that of Claudius Apollinarios, who assumes the re- 
lability of the chronology of ‘‘Matthew’’ in the Paschal contro- 
versy of Laodicea about 167, the Gospel of Matthew is invariably 
the standard in all orthodox circles for the ‘‘commandments given 
by the Lord to the faith,’’ whether as regards order or complete- 
ness. Just how soon after Ignatius the name ‘‘ According to Mat- 
thew’’ had become attached to this Gospel we cannot tell. It is 
certain that Ignatius uses the work. But he does not use it as if 
he attached apostolic authority to it. It is also certain that within 
a decade or so after Ignatius it is quoted in church circles as ‘‘the’’ 
Gospel, and used as the supreme apostolic authority. These are the 
termini for the rise of the tradition of Matthean authorship. There 
is absolutely no knowledge in Papias’ time of a Second Souree or 
any other “‘compend of the Lord’s discourses’’ of any kind save the 
Gospel of Matthew. It is the invariable resort of all church writers, 
such as Justin, for everything that they would advance authorita- 
tively concerning the Lord’s life or teaching. If occasionally they 


’ 


DATE OF PAPIAS 41 


report something from Luke, or more rarely from Mark, it is usu- 
ally for the very obvious reason that it was not contained in Mat- 
thew. For the ‘‘commandments’’ resort to Matthew might be ex- 
pected from the nature of this Gospel. As regards the narrative, and 
in particular the order of events, the explanation is equally simple. 
Matthew’s Gospel alone was supposed to record the direct testimony 
of an Apostle. In 150 a.p. the fourth Gospel had not yet appeared 
above the horizon. It existed, but is never appealed to as an authori- 
tative writing. Theophilus of Antioch (181 a.p.) is the first to as- 
eribe it to ‘‘John.’’ Not even Justin has recourse to ‘‘John’’ for 
endorsement of any other document than the Apocalypse. When 
he speaks of ‘‘Memoirs of Apostles which are called Gospels, and 
which were composed by Apostles and companions of Apostles’’ 
he means Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is apparent from his 
quotations. The ‘‘companions’’ are unquestionably Mark and Luke. 
The ‘‘ Apostles’’ who shared in their task are Peter, who contributed 
‘‘his memoirs,’’ and Matthew. Paul can hardly be meant. John is 
not at all in mind, otherwise Justin’s Logos doctrine would cer- 
tainly claim apostolic support. But as a rule Justin does not use the 
Fourth Gospel. Papias, then, cannot be supposed to have rested on 
it. For we have strong reason to suppose his book was well known 
- to Justin, and even if this were not the case it would be unreason- 
able to imagine the bishop of Hierapolis depending upon this 
Ephesian Gospel while his later contemporary at Rome, though 
himself converted in Ephesus, makes practically no use of it. 

Even were it supposable that Papias regarded the Fourth Gospel 
as the work of an Apostle, it would still be insupposable that he 
brought its order into comparison with Matthew’s; for the question 
of Johannine versus Synoptic order came up afterward. We can 
trace the history of this development, and it clearly belongs to the 
generation following Papias, and not his own. We cannot indeed 
precisely date the Monarchian Prologue to Matthew, but it cer- 
tainly reflects the feeling of the second century when it specifically 
directs the reader to look for all ‘‘matters pertaining to date, order, 
number, and arrangement, whether chronological or logical,’’ to 
Matthew (quarum rerum ommum, tempus, ordo, nuwmerus, dis- 
positio, vel ratio (se. apud Matthaewm repetendum) ). It was at the 
cost of a severe struggle that room was found toward the close of 
the second century for the Johannine order alongside the Matthean, 
and by dint of real prodigies of harmonization. But no advocate 
of the Johannine order appeals to Papias. 

The same inference may be drawn from the Ammonian sections, 
which for the third century took the place of a harmony of the Gos- 


42 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


pels. Their author takes the order of Matthew as the basis of his 
parallels quite as a matter of course. Tatian has a more difficult 
problem. With his Diatessaron, in fact, begins the perplexing task 
of finding room in the Synoptic outline for Johannine material. 
Still there is no attempt to displace Matthew from its accepted 
supremacy. Matthew’s order dominated even for Claudius Appol- 
linarios—John is adjusted to it. In short, there is no room before 
Tatian for the raising of this issue. 

It is quite probable that Papias had knowledge of the Fourth 
Gospel in some form, but more than doubtful if he assigned it 
apostolic authority. This question has been discussed elsewhere.* 
Hither way it is practically certain that Papias did not raise the 
issue which a generation later was brought into the foreground. 
through the opposition of the Alogi to the admission of John to 
canonical standing. In the days of Gaius’ Dialogue against Proclus 
(180-185?) it could be argued, and was argued, that the failure of 
the Gospel of John to agree with the Matthean order showed its 
spurious origin. But the very fact that neither Montanist nor anti- 
Montanist makes appeal to Papias shows that the issue had not been 
previously drawn. Not even Irenaeus looks to Papias for support 
in contending for the Johannine authorship. Our earliest record of 
anything approaching comparison of the Johannine order with the 
Matthean belongs to Papias’ own bishopric. His successor at Hier- 
apolis, Claudius Apollinarios, complains of certain ‘“‘ignorant”’ 
persons who find discrepancy between the practice of the (Asiatic) 
church (quartodeciman, like the Fourth Gospel) and the report of 
‘“‘Matthew.’’ How Apollinarios himself reconciled the two Gospels 
we are not informed, but he certainly regarded ‘‘Matthew’’ as 
apostolic and authoritative, and probably adjusted its report as 
best he could to Asiatic practice and the Johannine chronology. It 
is later still, and at Rome, that we find traces of comparison of the 
Johannine order with the Matthean. Here Gaius rejects the Fourth 
Gospel because it conflicts with Synoptic tradition (which for him 
means Matthew). Proclus the Montanist from Phrygia, per contra 
(Eusebius, H. H. III, xxiv, on ‘‘The Order of the Gospels’’), main- 
tains that ‘‘the Gospels are not at variance with one another, inas- 
much as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of 
Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his 
life.’’ The language is that of Eusebius. But his indebtedness to 
the unorthodox Proclus whom he is reporting is apparent from the 
earlier portion of the chapter, and from the similar attempt of 


4 Bacon, Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 1909, p. 73 ff. 


DATE OF PAPIAS 43 


Irenaeus to meet the charge of discrepancy by extending the min- 
istry of Jesus over a period of ten or twenty years (!).° Finally the 
Muratorian Fragment claims for the order of John (1. 34, “‘per 
ordinem’’) the witness of I Jn. 1:1, which proceeds from ‘‘behold- 
ing’’ to ‘“‘handling’’ the Logos of life, in correspondence with 
Jn. 1:14 and 20: 26-29. 

We are thus afforded a glimpse of the stages of advance. Quarto- 
deciman practice in Asia was apostolic. It went back to the days 
of Paul (I Cor. 5:7; 15:20). The indigenous Gospel (John) re- 
flects it. With Matthew a different reckoning, also claiming apostolic 
authority, was introduced. In Papias we can only note the presence 
of the two conflicting representations. His successor, Claudius 
Apollinarios, harmonizes. According to him only the ignorant hold 
that there is conflict. Melito of Sardis is Apollinarios’ comrade in 
this new phase of the struggle, which Montanus complicates by his 
claims for the rights of “‘prophecy’’ and insistence on the apostolic 
authority of the Johannine writings, especially the Revelation. 
Melito and Apollinarios also accept the Johannine writings, but 
find difficulty in reconciling them with Matthew. Proclus, the dis- 
ciple of Montanus, transfers the scene of conflict from Phrygia to 
_ Rome. The stages are successive and datable. They cannot be re- 
versed. 

All this development is later than Papias, and follows by a 
natural sequence upon the apostolic authority with which he had 
invested (a) the Matthean Gospel of the Commandments, and (b) 
the Johannine ‘‘Revelation’’ of the Resurrection and Judgment. 
Irenaeus is a (later) representative of those who (through sym- 
pathy with Montanus or otherwise) had in the meantime extended 
the claim of apostolic authorship from the Revelation (which really 
purports to be written by ‘‘John’’) to the anonymous Gospel ema- 
nating from the same region at about the same time (Ephesus, ca. 
100). With Irenaeus they assume responsibility for the difficulties 
which began to be felt in reconciling the two forms of Gospel tradi- 
tion. Papias had borne testimony to the Johannine authorship of 
the Revelation, as Andreas and Aretas inform us. If it could be 
shown that Papias made similar claims for the Gospel it might be 
reasonable to carry back these disputes to his time. But the sup- 
posed testimony reported in certain late Latin Prologues to the 
effect that Papias declared that the Ephesian Gospel ‘‘was re- 
vealed (manifestatum) and given out to the churches by John 
while yet in the body’’ has been shown by the present writer to be a 


-6 Haer. II, xxii, 5. 


44 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


mere adaptation of Rev. 1: 9-11.° The fragment probably does repre- 
sent the testimony of Papias to Revelation, to which Andreas refers, 
a, testimony which some second- or third-century defender of the 
entire Johannine canon, such as Irenaeus or Hippolytus, has ex- 
tended to cover the Gospel also. Its phraseology (manifestatum, 
datum ecclesis) shows that it belongs to the Revelation (cf. Rev. 
1:11). An actual testimony of Papias to the apostolic origin of the 
Gospel which escaped the notice not only of Eusebius but of Proclus, 
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and all the other defenders in the age of 
assault upon this Gospel both in Phrygia and Rome, is an extreme 
improbability. On these grounds we regard it as anachronistic to 
imagine Papias criticizing the order of Mark by reference to John, 
whom he does not mention, rather than Matthew, whom he takes to 
be the author of the standard owvragis tov Aoyiwv. | 

Recognizing that it is the order of Matthew, and only this order, 
which determines the standpoint of Papias, we must still hesitate 
somewhat as to the precise meaning of the Elder, whom Papias 
quotes. The Elder criticizes the order of Mark absolutely, not 
with reference to some other writing; but he may have consid- 
ered the ideal order to be either one of two very different types, 
that of (a) the owragis, or (b) the dynos. Matthew, as we have 
seen, gives us a systematic presentation of the ‘‘commandments’’ 
by constructing a new Torah in five ‘books’ with Prologue (Mt. 1-2) 
and Epilogue (Mt. 26-28). For this purpose he combines the narra- 
tive of Mark with the discourse material of the Second Source so 
as to produce a succession of narratives, each framing in a body of 
legislation, and linked to the next by a recurrent formula. It is the 
method of the Books of Moses. Papias calls Matthew a owragis rav 
Aoyiwv. It would be hard to find a term more exactly descriptive of 
the work as we have it. For those whose conception of the evangelic 
message was of this Jewish, neo-legalistic type such an ‘‘order’’ 
would be very serviceable. The other type of order would be the 
narrative or dujynous. This is adopted by Luke, who in this follows 
the example of ‘‘many,’’ including Mark. Luke believes, however, 
that he can improve upon the work of these predecessors because he 
had “‘followed all things from the very first,’’ or, as we may prob- 
ably better render, ‘‘had contact with them long ago.’’ He does, in 
fact, tell his story in chronological sequence, even correcting here 
and there the order of Mark where visibly unchronological, and 

6 Bacon, ‘‘Latin Prologues of John,’’? Journal of Biblical Literature, 


XXXII, iii, 1913, and ‘‘Marcion, Papias and the Elders,’’ Journal of Theolo- 
gical Studies, XXIII, 90, Jan. 1922. 


DATE OF PAPIAS 45 


casting the new discourse material into the form of a Peraean 
Journey. Luke, therefore, by his own statement, writes an improved 
dunynors. | 

‘‘Not, however, in order’’ (ov pévro: ra€er) can therefore apply 
either to literary or chronological arrangement. The first use we 
should make of the Elder’s testimony as to Mark’s ‘‘order’’ should 
be to dissuade from the attempt to read into it what cannot rightly 
be carried further back than Papias. Papias assumes the Elder 
to mean the Lukan type of ‘‘order,’’ the chronological order of a 
dunynows. The Elder may or may not have had chronological order 
in view. We have as yet no means of determining the matter. To 
his mind Mark’s Gospel lacked ragis. Why it did so is a question for 
further consideration. 

Our only basis of judgment (apart from the general assumption 
that Papias’ understanding of the testimony must be taken to be 
correct unless some consideration be opposed) is the very limited 
content of the Elder’s description of the work. He views it as a 
‘““miscellany’’ (7 AexPevra 7) tpaxGevra). He observes its character as a 
compilation of anecdotes reproduced from an apostle’s (preach- 
ing?) utterances. By making the supposition that he had some 
document with which the order of Mark could be compared it would 
- be easy to explain why he made the criticism. But we are not en- 
titled to make such suppositions if the facts can be explained with- 
out. And in this case no such supposition is needed. Moreover the 
criticism is not relative but absolute. 

It is true enough that for modern critics Mark’s order is the 
best available, because chronological sequence is what the historical 
critic mainly desires. He finds the nearest approach to this in Mark. 
Little as this Gospel gives toward an outline of Jesus’ career, even 
that minimum is the historian’s sole Ariadne thread. It appears to 
have been much the same to Luke, in spite of his efforts to reach a 
better (chronological) ‘‘order’’; and Matthew has not helped the 
matter by his attempt at a logical rdés. But why should one of ‘‘the 
Elders’’ prefer one written order to another? And why, if he did, 
should he not point out that in this respect Mark offers no appre- 
ciable advantage over oral tradition. Anecdotes and sayings, told for 
purposes of religious edification or church apologetic—these are all 
Mark has to give. The thread of story is barely sufficient to hold 
them together. Even if the work did not bear the title of Miscellany 
(drropvnpovevpara) its character was self-evident. 

Probably the anecdotes and sayings told by the Elders were re- 
lated in much the same looseness of connection, for such is the very 
nature of oral tradition. No other connection appears in any quar- 


46 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


ter—for the very simple reason that there was no other. But that 
which we ourselves lack we do not always refrain from warning the 
public they should not expect to find in others. Neither need we 
suppose that the Elders did not, regard their own tdéis (whether 
logical like Matthew’s or chronological like Luke’s) as far superior 
to that of any mere compiler of Petrine ‘‘reminiscences,’’ however 
conscientious, unless he were able to verify it by enquiry from some 
apostolic source. The Elder, then, does not appear to be commend- 
ing some other document in place of Mark as containing a better 
‘‘order.’’ He is merely entering a general caution, which if observed 
by our modern interpreters of Mark would have saved them from 
the very error to which they are most prone. He is reminding his 
questioner that Mark is a ‘‘miscellany’’ (dropyynpovetpara). 

The wish is irrepressible to have a real life of Christ, instead of 
the mere collection of anecdotes illustrative of the movement he 
conducted, which is all the records supply. Every commentator 
longs to make it appear that the story (or better, the group of 
agglutinated stories) of Mark is a real, consecutive outline of that 
brief, dramatic career which culminated at Calvary. Often the wish 
is father to the thought. But it is against our own better knowledge, 
as well as against the warning of the Elder, that we take this opti- 
mistic view. One modern ‘‘Life of Christ’’ follows another, one 
‘Commentary on Mark’? follows another, all pressing to the utmost 
the supposition that these manifestly artificial, topical connections 
represent the actual, historical sequence of events. Even a Johannes 
Weiss can argue that because he discovers no other reason why the 
story of the Epileptic (Mk. 9:14-29) should follow on the Trans- 
figuration, therefore, in spite of the geographical implications, it 
must have actually happened at this particular time. The warning 
of the Elder should have borne better fruit. A critic so competent 
as Weiss, so familiar with the method of ‘‘The Oldest Gospel’’ of 
stringing anecdotes together in that order which would in his judg- 
ment best suit the religious needs of his readers (an order zpds ras 
xpe‘as), should have thought twice before using such an argument. 

We cannot be sure how much of the representation of Peter’s 
preaching in Papias’ explanation was derived from the Elder. But 
this we can say: Whoever explained the order of the Markan mis- 
cellanies as due to the exigencies of homiletic edification has sup- 
plied the real key to its nature. Only those whose exposition of this 
Gospel proceeds on the principle that its anecdotes are arranged 
primarily in the interest of religious edification (including apolo- 
getic), and only secondarily in the interest of biography or history, 


DATE OF PAPIAS 47 


will do real justice to the facts. On this point the Elder’s criticism 
is more penetrating than most of that put forward today.’ 

Critics who argue for an Ur-Markus as the work Papias and the 
Elders had in view generally do so on the ground that the Elders 
criticize the order of the work, whereas no gospel known to us has 
an order historically as good as Mark’s, and even such historical 
value as attaches to the order of the other Gospels is derived from 
Mark. The fact is undeniable. There should be no failure to admit 
that relatively to others Mark’s order has more traces of historicity. 
Without some real connection, nearer or more remote, with an eye- 
witness such as Peter even Mark’s minimum of historical move- 
ment from beginnings in Capernaum to exile in ‘‘the coasts of 
Tyre and Sidon,’’ new beginnings at Caesarea Philippi and catas- 
trophe at Jerusalem, would hardly have survived. But why should 
Papias’ criticism of Mark’s order require as its basis some other 
Gospel of Mark than ours, if he was mentally comparing Mark 
with Matthew—or for that matter with John? and why should the 
Elder be using as a standard any document whatever? True enough, 
Mark’s order is relatively the best, or at least chronologically the 
best. Nevertheless Papias would inevitably prefer Matthew’s. Again, 
Mark’s order, however superior to Matthew’s, Luke’s, or John’s, 
* is not historical. But why should we suppose the Elder so ignorant 
of the nature of synagogue and church teaching by the “‘telling of 
tales’? (haggada), and edifying anecdote (midrash), as not to 
recognize what sort of material was being submitted to him in the 
form of Miscellanies of Peter (’Aropvynpovevpara UWérpov)? The real fact 
of the case, when we study the structure of Mark with all the re- 
finements of modern eriticism, is this: Mark has neither the raéts 
of Matthew nor the rdéis of Luke, though it has attempts at both. 
The Elder (not Papias, but Papias’ informant) gives us no ground 
for supposing that he had knowledge of either Luke or Matthew; 
to say nothing of John. As regards the basic fact that Mark is lack- 
ing in réés of either kind his judgment is abundantly confirmed. 
More heed to it would have saved us much misinterpretation. 

The Elder needed nothing more than a moment’s survey of the 
Gospel of Mark to reveal its lack of rdéis. This will perhaps be con- 
ceded. But the deficiency itself, and the Elder’s recognition of the 
fact, has no small bearing on the question of date. The outstanding 
fact is this. Gospel writing began with a miscellany of anecdotes, 


7 Recent German criticism has gone far to remedy this defect. The ‘‘ theory 
of pericopes’’ developed by R. Bultmann in his Geschichte der Synoptischen 
Tradition (1921) on the basis of M. Dibelius (Formgeschichte des Evan- 
geliums), and K. L, Schmidt (Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu) is of great value. 


48 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


not with a history or biography, not with a Torah of new command- 
ments, but with groups of stories told on various occasions in the 
course of missionary preaching. Why did it begin so? Why, after 
it had begun in this imperfect way, could nothing better be done 
to improve the rdés than to interpolate sections from a compilation 
of different type, as in the artificial attempts of Luke and Matthew? 
This is one of the problems for us to consider. Indeed it is the 
primary problem for those who look at Synoptic story as a whole, 
asking why it consists of mere agglutinations of anecdotes. 

Our survey of primitive testimony is in some respects disappoint- 
ing. As so often happens, when reduced to what can be really relied 
upon, its contents are less informing than we had hoped. Zahn has 
noted as characteristic of the testimony of the ancient Prologues 
and Argumenta that they consist almost invariably of inferences 
based upon the contents of the work itself to which they are pre- 
fixed or appended. The authors of Argumenta took their material 
where it could be had with least effort. The same seems to be largely 
true of our fundamental report of gospel origins. The Elder doubt- 
less had knowledge of both Peter and Mark as individuals. Whether 
he had knowledge of the origin of the document submitted to him, 
other than he could draw at the moment from its title “Avopvnpovedpara 
Ilérpov xara Mdpxov, and brief inspection of the contents, is at least 
doubtful. In the absence of any evidence of more we must assume 
that the internal evidence formed the basis of his judgment. The 
document purported to be ‘Azopvnpovetpara Iérpov, or, aS moderns 
might term it, ‘‘Sermon Notes from the Preaching of Peter,’’ and 
these were understood to be transmitted, given out, or edited 
‘‘under the hand (xaré) of Mark.’? The Elder approves the claim 
implied in this title. No more can in strictness be drawn from the 
testimony. It seems a small result. Hereafter we must take up again 
this matter of the testimony, distinguishing between the original 
report and later inferences. For even the latter may prove instruc- 
tive, however historically ill-founded. For the present we restrict 
ourselves to the original report. 

It is disappointing to find that the distinction just made between 
testimony and inference deprives us at the very outset of the one 
positive date on which criticism has hitherto mainly depended. We 
can no longer say that Mark must be later than the reign of Nero, 
alleging the ‘‘tradition’’ that he wrote ‘‘after the death of Paul 
and Peter.’’ Strictly speaking there was no such ‘‘tradition’’; or 
rather it became a tradition only after having taken form originally 
as a mere inference drawn from the original report. Whether correct 


DATE OF PAPIAS 49 


or not is another question, which must be settled hereafter on its 
merits. 

The history of the allegation is as follows: Irenaeus, who makes 
the statement, merely rests on Papias, while Papias rests on ‘‘the 
Elder,’’ whose statement he interprets (rightly or wrongly) by 
comparison of the salutation from ‘‘Mark my son’’ in I Pt. 5:13. 
Such at least was the independent opinion, based on excellent 
grounds, of two such learned and conservative critics as Lightfoot 
and Zahn. The Elder found fault with the rags of Mark. Papias 
thinks Mark might have had a better rags if he could have consulted 
Peter, but does not explain what prevented this. Irenaeus assumes 
(unless he has some means of knowledge which he does not disclose, 
and which we must therefore disregard) that Peter and Paul, 
Mark’s spiritual fathers, were dead. As we shall see, later apologists, 
anxious to claim the utmost for the Gospel in the way of apostolic 
authority, were reluctant to admit a post-apostolic origin. When the 
Elder said Mark ‘‘had been’’ (yevopevos) the interpreter of Peter it 
did not necessarily imply Peter’s death. The obstacle to Mark’s ob- 
taining an apostolic rdéis might be something else. Apologetic begins 
by alleging non-intervention on Peter’s part. It ends by denying the 
inconvenient fact. It declares the rags to have been apostolic in spite 
of all. Peter dictated the whole Gospel just as it stands. Mark com- 
posed it ‘‘Petro narrante et illo scribente.”’ 

With these later developments of the tradition we must deal here- 
after. Saving suppositions are easy to make, and are chiefly of 
value as showing the perplexity of the maker. We are now con- 
cerned only with the testimony of the Elder, and what may properly 
be deduced from it by those whose object is history rather than 
apologetic. From this point of view the Elder’s testimony amounts 
to this: The “Azopuvnpovedpara should be received as really represent- 
ing the preaching of Peter. They may properly be regarded as 
Markan, given out in some sense under the hand or authority of 
Mark, who in his earlier life had indeed been associated with Peter, 
but later became a helper of Barnabas, and ultimately one of the 
leading lieutenants of Paul. The work shows the merits of careful 
compilation (dxpiBds éypayev). But it consists of miscellaneous ma- 
terial arranged only in such order as the editor could command. The 
reserve of this commendation shows that to the Elder’s mind the 
Gospel of Mark could not take the place of a full account in proper 
rééis_ (whatever that might eh of the teachings and work of the 
Lord. 





A epavd yd bid 
EVIDENCE FROM ESCHATOLOGY 





CHAPTER V 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 


THE twin pillars on which the accepted date for Mark has rested 
for generations are the so-called ‘‘tradition’’ of Irenaeus, and the 
thirteenth chapter of the Gospel containing the Eschatological Dis- 
course. Irenaeus was supposed to force us down to a dating after 
the death of Peter and Paul; the eschatology to carry us back to a 
date before 70 by its prediction of the doom of Jerusalem, and the 
coming to judgment of the Son of Man. We may eall this Eschato- 
logical Discourse of Mk. 13:1-37 the Doom-chapter. At least it 
hinges on a saying of Jesus on the overthrow of the temple (Mk. 
Meyer LIE.) 

The former pillar has crumbled under the fire of criticism. Noth- 
ing remains of the Irenaean tradition save the adverse verdict of 
the Elder on ‘‘the order’’ of the Miscellanies. Irenaeus assumes the 
lack of order to be due to the ‘‘departure’’ of Peter and Paul. In 
reality the Elder seems only to be reminding the enquirer that 
Miscellanies are Miscellanies, which by their very nature are de- 
ficient in ‘‘order.’’ But was the Elder’s criticism well founded? 
And if so was the fault due to this cause? If his complaint was un- 
justified, or the lack of order can be accounted for on any other sup- 
position than the disappearance of the eye-witnesses, the inference 
of post-apostolic date cannot be drawn. No obstacle will then re- 
main in primitive tradition to the recent attempts to place the 
composition of Mark before the Roman imprisonment of Paul. What 
may still be properly inferred from the words of the Elder will re- 
ceive consideration later. Our attention must now be turned to the 
other terminus. Do the contents of Mark require us to date it before 
70 A.p.? Or is perhaps the contrary implied? 

Antiquity has nothing to say concerning the bearing of the 
Eschatological Discourse on the date; but modern critics have been 
so confident that the occurrences of the Jewish War in 67-70 would 
have left a clearer mark upon the chapter had the compilation of 
the Gospel not preceded these startling events, that the majority 
have accepted the argument as conclusive, and therefore made the 
year 70 the lower limit in their schemes of dating. It remains to sift 
this argument also. If it shows no better resistance to the scrutiny of 
criticism than its companion pillar, the field will be left practically 


d4 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


without barriers. Almost any date from 40 to 95 will then be admis- 
sible. Indeed were it not for the youthfulness and inexperience of 
the reputed author at the time when he is described in Acts 12: 12 
in the house of his mother Mary in Jerusalem, and for the universal 
admission that Papias does not concede without abundant reason 
that Mark ‘‘was not a follower of the Lord, but afterward of 
Peter,’’ we should perhaps find claims advanced for a date even 
earlier than 40. Similarly certain former advocates of dependence 
by Mark on Matthew (if not on Luke as well) might be still ad- 
vocating a date later than 95, had not the general recognition of 
dependence in the reverse direction made it unavoidable to go back 
at least within the reign of Domitian. As matters actually stand 
there are none to advocate a date later than 95 or earlier than 40. 


But what of the supposed necessity for placing the composition of. 


the Gospel before the destruction of the temple in August, 70? 

So far as the present writer is aware there is no attempt to date 
the composition of Mark within the first decade after the crucifixion 
(30-40). It is a generally accepted view that early tradition is ad- 
missible at least to this extent, that the name of Mark was not ar- 
bitrarily attached to the Gospel, but that it actually circulated from 
the beginning under the authority of this unpretentious name. Had 
a pseudonym been sought the name of Peter would have been at- 
tached, since even in Justin’s time the contents were regarded as 
derived from the preaching of Peter. John of Jerusalem, surnamed 
Mark, was, then, the real sponsor, if not personally the compiler of 
the work. This being so it cannot well be imagined that he under- 
took it while still a mere lad, living with his mother Mary in Jeru- 
salem. For if the lad had presumed to undertake a literary work of 
so important a character while he himself was still a very subordi- 
nate member of a group which included the entire body of the 
Apostles, besides the mother and brethren of Jesus, it could hardly 
have become the standard and practically unrivalled gospel record. 
Nor can it well be imagined that in such a group there would have 
been no correction of the notorious duplications of Mark, such as 
the two accounts of the Feeding of the Multitude. The church of 
the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem would not have contented 
themselves at this time with mere deprecation of Mark’s lack of 
order, and done nothing to improve upon it. In view of these im- 
probabilities we may take it for granted that the composition is at 
least as late as 40 A.D. 

But the year 40 itself is regarded by some as not too early. The 
argument for this extremely early date is put most forcibly by 
Professor Charles C. Torrey, of Yale, though his discussion is un- 


a 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 55 


fortunately not in. published form, so that references can be made 
only to oral communication at readings before the Society of Biblical 
Literature* and elsewhere. Nevertheless I shall hope to make no 
misrepresentation while citing his views. It may be well to remark 
that however paradoxical they may appear to New Testament critics 
they are advanced by a philologian of very high standing, not un- 
used to the methods of literary and historical criticism, though 
better known in the Old Testament field. Torrey’s inferences as to 
the date of Mark are based exclusively on the Doom-chapter. It will 
be well to consider the claim in this consistent and thoroughgoing 
presentation before attempting to deal with vaguer generalizations. 

Professor Torrey dismisses out of hand all theories of incorpora- 
tion of earlier material, such as the famous ‘‘ Apocalyptic Leaflet”’ 
(Apokalyptisches Flugblatt) theory of Colani and Weiffenbach, 
according to which the Doom-chapter represents an earlier element 
incorporated by the second evangelist.” A large number of critics, 


1 At the Meeting in December, 1919. 

2 Professor Torrey’s attempt to date the Gospel of Mark some forty years 
earlier than ancient tradition dated it presents a curious parallel to the attempt 
of Baur and the Tubingen School to antedate the Book of Revelation. In both 
cases criticism is in the singular position of advocating a date which church 
, tradition would have been glad to claim had its understanding of the facts per- 
mitted. The tendency among the fathers is pronounced, as the tradition passes 
from earlier to later forms, to carry back the date within the period recognized 
as that of ‘‘the teaching of the Apostles.’’ Baur’s dating of Revelation and 
Torrey’s of Mark are alike in opposing each one of the two strongest and most 
elemental traditions of the second century regarding the origin of its apostolic 
records. That which fixed the date of Revelation ‘‘in the end of the reign of 
Domitian’’ is transmitted to us at the early date of Irenaeus (on the basis of 
Papias?) because debate in his time had been raging over the authenticity of 
the book. Baur showed more courage than discretion in setting such a tradition 
as this at defiance. The other tradition, as we have seen, is traceable to a much 
earlier date than the tradition as to the date of Revelation, and was equally 
vital to apologists of the second century such as Papias, to whom this at least 
(if not the tradition as to the date of Revelation also) is owing. It is true that 
Papias substitutes Matthew for Mark as his apostolic authority for ‘‘the com- 
mandments of the Lord,’’ in accordance with the practice of his own period. 
But the tradition of ‘‘the Elder’’ to which he appeals has nothing to say about 
Matthew. It relates to Mark only, and treats it as a post-apostolic document. 
Perhaps the most curious feature of the parallel between the two critical at- 
tempts to set ancient tradition aside on the basis of the internal evidence of the 
document is that Professor Torrey repeats the dubious strategy of the Tubingen 
School in resting his case on the assumption that the book in question is a unit, 
in which there can be no discrimination of earlier and later elements. The 
Tiibingen critics pointed to Rev. 11: 1f. as sure proof that the book as a whole 
antedated the fall of Jerusalem. Modern critics admit that they were right so 
far as this particular section is concerned, but are convinced, practically without 
exception, that other elements of the book are so much later in date as to justify 


56 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


including many of those who date the Gospel before a.p. 70, have 
adopted the Leaflet idea, partly, perhaps, because of the conven- 
tional threefold form of the prophecy, which divides the things to 
come into a Beginning of Travail (épxy adver, v. 8), a Great Tribu- 
lation (AAdhs peydAn, v. 14-20), and a manifestation of the Son of 
Man (v. 24-27). Whether with or without incorporation Mark has 
certainly constructed in the so-called ‘‘Eschatological Discourse’’ 
attached to Jesus’ saying on the enduring temple (Mk. 13:2) a 
forecast which shows affinity in content with ‘‘prophecies’”’ of the 
well-known apocalyptic type displayed, for example, in Avd. xvi. 
rather than with well-authenticated sayings of Jesus. With the 
question of a possible Little Apocalypse incorporated by Mark we 
must deal later. Professor Torrey naturally throws the burden of 
proof on those who attempt a source-analysis of Mark, and ques- 
tions whether we have the right to distinguish between the evange- 
list’s own ideas and those of incorporated material, even if such be 
admitted to be present. Has not Mark in adopting such ideas made 
them in substance his own? We must, then, he argues, treat Mk. 13 
as a unit and as an integral part of the Gospel. On this basis Torrey 
maintains that the Gospel of Mark was written neither earlier nor 
later than the year 39-40 a.p. For at this time all Judea, Christian 
and Jewish alike, stood in horror of an expected renewal of the 
catastrophe of the year 168 B.c., when Antiochus Epiphanes at- 
tempted to uproot by force the religion of Jehovah. As is well 
known there was actually established in the temple at Jerusalem in 
168 B.c. ‘‘the abomination which maketh desolate,’’ a heathen altar 
which for the time being displaced that of Jehovah and turned the 
sanctuary itself into a temple of idols. Professor Torrey feels con- 
vinced that the words in Mk. 13: 14 ‘‘But when ye see the abomina- ~ 
tion of desolation (76 BdaAvypa THs épnudcews,* the phrase by which the 
LXX render the Hebrew shiqqutz shomem in I Mace. 1: 54) stand- 
ing where he ought not’’ could only have been written just before 
the assassination of Caligula, on January 24, 41 a.p., when there 
seemed to be immediate danger that the megalomania of the insane 
emperor would issue in a repetition of the outrage of Antiochus. 


the ancient tradition. Hence Rev. 11: 1f. is merely a built-in block of older 
masonry. Critics have only to show the same thing with regard to Mk. 13: 14 to 
undermine completely Professor Torrey’s attempt to set aside the tradition of 
antiquity regarding the date of Mark, at least equally ancient with that regard- 
ing Revelation, and still less likely than it to be based on unhistorical grounds. 

8'The Hebrew contains a word-play on the name of the divinity whose wor- 
ship Antiochus sought to introduce, viz. Zeds Otpdvos. Shiqqutz (LXX—fdédd\vypa, 
‘‘abominable thing’’) is a frequent Old Testament term for ‘idol’ or ‘false 
god.’ Shomem substitutes other vowel points for shamayim=oitpdvws, 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 57 


. From January, 41, till the destruction of the temple in August, 70, 
there was no immediate threat of precisely this kind, so that if the 
prophecy really looks to a repetition of the sacrilege of Antiochus 
it remained unfulfilled. 

In spite of Torrey’s rejection of the testimony of antiquity, and 
his equal rejection of modern judgments superficially based upon 
general impressions of remoteness from the event as it will have 
appeared to the eye-witnesses, there is a strong appeal in his radi- 
cal redating of the Gospels. It is no mere apologetic, striving under 
the guise of better dating to secure firmer ground on which to 
build up a theory of inerrancy; for Torrey has proved that he is no 
such doctrinal advocate. He admits abundant legendary accretion 
but denies that any considerable time was required for its growth. 
The supposed need of decades of time to, allow for such growth 
is in his judgment a great illusion. Even without the relatively 
modern instances from the quick growth of the legend of St. Fran- 
cis, the Book of Acts itself witnesses to the rapidity of the develop- 
ment by its train of miracles attending the story of Paul, and re- 
corded in some instances by an actual eye-witness. These exorcisms, 
miraculous earthquakes opening prison doors for apostles while 
unperceived by the rest of the city, these resuscitations from the 
‘ dead, healings and escapes from death by divine intervention, these 
visions and revelations from the Lord, should prove that it is not 
length of time which determines the miraculous or non-miraculous 
character of the record, so much as the eye to perceive and the dis- 
position to choose the marvellous as the approved method of divine 
revelation. For in some, if not most of the above instances from 
Second Acts, it is the author of the Diary himself, a companion 
and friend of Paul (though not necessarily the author Luke, the 
beloved physician) who tells the story. By logical inference the 
mere presence of miracle and legend in the narrative of Mark, 
assuming the fact to be such as critics maintain, would therefore 
count for very little in the determination of date. The story of 
_ Jesus was doubtless surrounded by a halo of miracle and legend 
in many circles within a single decade from the crucifixion. Does 
not Mark himself refer to legends already in circulation during the 
lifetime of Jesus, concerning the miraculous return of John the 
Baptist from the grave, and his working of miracles by virtue of 
this supernatural mission ? Such is the line of argument. And doubt- 
less Torrey does well to remind us that miracle and legend in fertile 
soil can grow like Jonah’s gourd in a single night. 

Again this early dating is not a mere ill-judged attempt to come 
to the support of Harnack in his defiance of well-established second- 


58 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


century tradition to sustain a movement of his own under the cry 
‘Back to tradition.’’ In this somewhat unlooked-for alliance each 
critic undoubtedly welcomes the support of the other; but Har- 
nack’s ground for the early dating of Mark is merely its priority 
to Luke-Acts, for which he has lately claimed an origin before the 
death of Paul. The interest of Torrey lies in a different quarter 
altogether, one in which the views he has expressed in his discus- 
sions of the linguistic phenomena of Luke are diametrically opposed 
to those of Harnack. In his study of Lk. 1-2 for the Berlin Academy 
(Phil.-Hist. Klasse, XX VII, 1900) Harnack goes to the extreme in 
accounting for the Semitic coloration of the language as due to 
deliberate imitation of the LX-X by a Greek writer; whereas Torrey 
accounts for it as due to a Semitic document translated by the 
evangelist with a fidelity so minute, and so strongly in contrast with 
his own style, as to deserve from modern standards to be called 
servile. 

Two considerations Neen the judgment of Torrey, and by 
no means lack appeal to the unbiased critic. First, it is undeniable 
that the Greek of Mark gives remarkably strong and pervasive 
evidence of translation from the Aramaic. Manifestly the simplest 
explanation of this phenomenon would be that the entire work was 
composed in Palestine for a purely Aramaic-speaking community, 
such as that of the Jerusalem church before the scattering caused 
by the persecution of Agrippa I, the well-known epoch, so often 
referred to in primitive tradition, ‘‘twelve years’’ after the cruci- 
fixion, when the Apostles were to carry their message to the Gen- 
tiles. Earlier than 42 any writing intended for the use of Christians 
would surely be composed in Aramaic. The Greek Mark, according 
to Torrey, does not differ appreciably from its Semitic pattern. 
Hence the Aramaic original appeared in Jerusalem .p. 39-40. 

We may take Professor Torrey’s word for the fact that the Greek 
of Mark is true ‘‘translation-Greek.’’ But even were it granted 
(contrary to the general judgment of critics) that this Gospel has 
suffered no material alteration since it first took written form, the 
fact is self-evident that an Aramaic original by no means neces- 
sarily proves an early date. In reality such fragments as we actually 
possess of uncanonical Aramaic gospels prove beyond question 
that they are secondary to and dependent upon our own canonical 
Greek Gospels. One might almost say that we ought rather to re- 
verse the natural and primary assumption of Palestine as the region 
where the earliest attempts would be made to put the church tradi- 
tion of the sayings and doings of the Lord into written form. On 
the contrary it would be the mission churches in Gentile lands 


THE -ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE D9 


which would first feel the need of written records, and would have 
least reluctance to supply it. The more remote from the home of 
oral tradition, the more would.a church be inclined to obtain some 
written embodiment of it. At least it is beyond dispute that the 
slowest of all the churches to admit dependence on written records 
was the church of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem; whereas 
the earliest known Greek Gospel is that of Mark, which we are 
eredibly informed was composed at Rome. 

Written gospels suited neither the taste, the habits, nor the in- 
terest of the apostolic mother-church. To admit them to equality 
of standing with their own cherished oral tradition would have been 
equivalent to surrender of their chief prerogative. Gospel writing 
may therefore well have begun in Greek-speaking communities. 
But not for that reason on the basis of Greek documents; and it is 
with documents that we are supposed to be dealing. Indeed that is 
one of the chief results of the new philological doctrine of ‘‘trans- 
lation Greek.’’ It deals the cowp de grdce to the moribund theory 
of oral tradition as the basis of our present Gospels. Oral tradition 
undoubtedly played a part in the transmission of the record, but 
not the part immediately antecedent to these compositions. The 
Gospels known to us rest upon written documents. It is easy to 
- make the assumption that an Aramaic gospel must emanate from 
the apostolic circle. Jerome’s is the classic example of this sort of 
assumption. But just as Jerome mistook the Aramaic gospel in 
circulation since the time of Apollinarios of Laodicaea among the 
Nazarenes of northern Syria for the “‘original Gospel of Matthew 
written in the Hebrew tongue,’’ so it is easy for a modern critic to 
assume without adequate ground that Aramaic origin implies of 
necessity an early date. Because the first gospel documents were 
written in Aramaic it does not follow that gospel documents written 
in Aramaic were all early. Not even origin in a Greek-speaking com- 
munity such as the church in Rome removes the need for caution in 
this regard. Let it be assumed that Mark is a Roman gospel, ac- 
cording to the second-century tradition whose reliability has been 
defended in the volume of Harvard Texts and Studies to which 
reference has been made (vol. VII). It does not follow that we 
should expect the sources employed to be Greek. Rather should we 
say: In the compilation of a Miscellany from the Preaching of Peter 
for the use of the church in Rome for public teaching and preaching 
after the death of the Apostles, no written source, whether consist- 
ing of Ady or duyynots, would receive serious consideration unless 
its authenticity were vouched for by its language. If not Semitic, 
whether in language (Aramaic or Hebrew), or else as bearing the 


60 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


evidence on its face of translation from the Semitic, it would be 
liable to meet rejection. Recognition of the fact that the material 
of all our Gospels gives evidence of translation (not orally, as the 
ancients imagined, but from written documents) should go hand 
in hand with appreciation of the fact that the compilers of our 
Gospels knew ‘‘translation Greek’’ as well as we, that they were 
certainly on their guard against ‘‘alien commandments,’’ and that 
language was the first consideration in their minds, so soon as the 
question of authenticity was raised. Jesus and the Apostles had 
spoken ‘‘Hebrew.’’ Therefore nothing was admissible, even in 
Greek-speaking churches, which was not either written in, or at 
least translated from ‘‘Hebrew.’’ Under such conditions the argu- 
ment for an early date or apostolic origin based upon the ‘‘transla- 
tion Greek’’ of these sources loses all appreciable value. Absence 
of this characteristic might have excluded the writing altogether. 

We shall have occasion later to see what may reasonably be in- 
ferred from the linguistic peculiarities of Mark. But the mere fact 
that it displays some of the crudest of “‘translation Greek’’ is so 
far from calling for a very early date that Wellhausen himself, to 
whom this discovery in application to Mark owes more than to any 
other philologian, insisted on a date later than 70 a.p., mainly on 
the ground (Hinl. p. 87) that in the Doom-chapter (Mk. 13: 29) 
the overthrow of Jerusalem is assumed to be a thing of the past 
(bereits vergangen), and is regarded as a mere sign of the ap- 
proaching end of the world. Whether this chapter on the contrary 
really calls for a date not later than 40 for Mark as a whole we 
have now to enquire. ! 

The second consideration which commends Professor Torrey’s 
argument to the careful attention of critics is the positive and defi- 
nite character of his appeal to the Doom-chapter as necessarily im- 
plying a date at the particular juncture of Caligula’s proposal to 
desecrate the temple. The argument depends, as we saw, on the 
large assumption that the whole Gospel, and not merely this par- 
ticular ‘‘prophecy,’’ took its present form at that time. This will be 
far from obtaining the consent of most critics. But on the assump- 
tion that the Gospel is all of one casting there would be much to 
commend Professor Torrey’s view. 

Superficial observers will be apt to feel some surprise at the ad- 
vancing of an argument based on the reference to the Abomination 
(Shiqqutz) as if it contained anything new. For the verse in ques- 
tion (Mk. 18:14) has always been the chief if not the only reliance 
of critics in attempting to find internal evidences of date. Well- 
hausen’s inference from this section for a date later than 70 has 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 61 


just been referred to. In a previous chapter (Il, p. 15) we have 
cited the more usual inference of Gould and other critics for a date 
earlier than 70 from ‘‘the sign given by Jesus of the time of the 
destruction of Jerusalem.’’ Less confident is the inference of Swete 
(Commentary on Mark, p. xl.) that “‘to some extent’’ the terminus 
ad quem of 70 A.D. is confirmed by ‘‘the absence of any indication 
that Jerusalem had fallen.’’ Both Gould and Swete of course recog- 
nize the reference in Mk. 13:14 to the attempt of Antiochus in 
168 B.c., and admit the closeness of the parallel in the attempt of 
Caligula in 40 A.p. 

Judicious commentators will hardly insist on the verbal accuracy 
of the report of Jesus’ prophecy. To maintain that the language of 
this verse predicting the appearance of the Shiqqutz in the temple 
was entirely uncolored by the events of 39-40, and represents only 
the ipsissima verba of Jesus, would involve not only a literary mira- 
cle, but would make Jesus responsible for an unfulfilled prophecy ; 
since in reality the temple was destroyed before the dreaded viola- 
tion ever took place. One might be willing to maintain that the real 
reason for the close agreement between the phraseology of Mark 
and the situation as it appeared in 40 A.D. was not the evangelist’s 
desire to secure exact correspondence between prediction and ful- 
- filment, but only his strict fidelity to the historical utterance, if the 
supposition led to the inference that Jesus supernaturally foresaw 
what would occur. But when it involves the contrary, implying that 
Jesus predicted something which though apparently inevitable in 
the year 40, actually never did come to pass, commentators are natu- 
rally more willing to allow room for coloration by the evangelist. 

The novelty of Torrey’s discussion lies precisely where the sub- 
ject is slurred by the caution of commentators. When Mk. 13:14 
is taken as a bold and definite prediction that the Shiqqutz should 
be set up in the temple as the chief sign of the ‘‘great tribulation”’ 
preceding the wind-up of all things, there is no escape from the 
dilemma: Either Jesus made this prediction, which actually failed 
to come to pass; or else it is wrongly ascribed to him. In the latter 
case (which will be here assumed) the time of its real origin can 
easily be fixed. It can only be a product of the extreme tension in 
Palestine in 39-40 4.p., when it was momentarily expected that this 
supreme outrage against Jewish religious feeling would be carried 
through. Torrey on this point is absolutely right. The prophecy of 
the Shiqqutz in Mk. 13:14 cannot be an authentic utterance of 
Jesus, at least in its present form; for it owes this form to the 
events of 40 A.D. 

It is not strange that commentators show no desire to meet the 


62 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


dilemma, and prefer to leave a vagueness surrounding the question 
as to what the prediction actually was. If Jesus made only some 
reference of a general character to the ‘‘destruction of Jerusalem,’’ 
and the evangelist himself is responsible for introducing the Shiq- 
qutz, fallibility i is revealed where it can be tolerated. Hence in such 
an admirable but cautious commentary as Swete’s the reader is told 
that 


if the Lord cited the passage from Daniel, he did so doubtless in the sense 
which the Greek translations had long impressed upon it. Shiqqutz, which 
the LXX render by éédvyua, is not limited to an object of idolatrous wor- 
ship; any symbol of heathenism which outraged the religious feelings of 
the Jewish people might be so described. The defining genitive épnudcews 
limits us to an outrage which was the prelude of national ruin, a crisis 


corresponding in effect if not in circumstances with the invasion of > 


Antiochus. 


Here it is discreetly left to the reader to decide whether the events 
of 39-40 have actually given their own color to the language, and 
if so whether Jesus himself or the evangelist is responsible for it. 
The merit of Torrey’s straightforward treatment is that it brushes 
away all ambiguity. Whatever ambiguity might attach to the word 
Bdervypo alone, in combination with the ‘‘ defining genitive épnudcews”’ 
it cannot possibly refer to anything else than that “‘spoken of by 
Daniel the Prophet.’’ Matthew clearly perceives the fact, and adds 
the reference. Professor Torrey is to be congratulated not only on 
his insistence on this undeniable fact, but also on his frank recogni- 
tion that nothing else save the occurrences of 40 A.D. can really 
account for the language. He naturally argues that since the pre- 
diction, which in 40 a.p. seemed practically sure of fulfilment, after 
all did not come to pass, the forecast must have been actually made 
in. 40 A.D., and at no other time. This will be the real date of the 
Shiqqutz prophecy, whatever basis, real or supposed, the evangelist 
may have had in some ‘‘word of the Lord.’’ Mk. 13:14 cannot 
possibly be dated earlier than 39-40. Does it follow that the entire 
Gospel is no later? 

Historico-critical reasons compel us to reject the authenticity of 
the profanation prophecy, which actually remained unfulfilled. In 
point of fact the kind of forecast by sign and portent which is here 
ascribed to Jesus contrasts strongly with his well-established atti- 
tude in regard to this very matter. Nothing can be clearer than his 
deprecation of such attempts to foretell the time, as contrary to 
the spirit of genuine repentance,‘ unless it be the obsession of the 


* According to Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, p. xxix, the rabbis themselves 
counted it sinful to attempt to calculate the advent of Meseinht 


———— 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 63 


false teachers and their deluded followers for just this kind of 
horoscope, with their “‘Lo here, lo there’’; and their determination 
of the kingdom of God ‘‘by observation.’’ Surely there are few 
passages in the Gospels which more unmistakably bear on their 
faces the mark of their alien origin than this attempt to apply the 
apocalypse of Daniel. If we were asked to name a passage which by 
its contradiction of authentic utterances, as well as by its manifest 
inferiority to the moral plane of the Master, might be set down as 
the least worthy of acceptance within the limits of Synoptic tradi- 
tion, it might well be the section which includes this verse as its 
climax.® | 

It is true the notion of an Apocalyptic Leaflet, circulated shortly 
before the overthrow of Jerusalem and leading to the flight of the 
Church to Pella, has had great popularity with gospel critics. The 
idea of a brochure perhaps to be identified with the ‘‘revelation 
vouchsafed there to approved men before the war’’ of which Huse- 
bius relates (H.H. III, v. 3), is romantic but difficult to align with 
the phenomena of the text. In the form in which this theory has 
usually been presented, a ‘‘prophecy’’ of the period ca. 66, as 
Eusebius seems to intend, published separately in written form, it 
_will hardly bear critical scrutiny.® But oral ‘‘prophecy’’ in the 
period 39-40 is quite a different matter. As we shall see, there is a 
probability that an apocalyptic ‘‘word of the Lord,’’ predicting a 
profanation of the temple as prelude to the End on the basis of 
Daniel, precisely as in this section of Mark, did appear in the year 
40 at Jerusalem, and did obtain in Christian circles more or less 
stereotyped fixity of content. But this view rests upon quite other 
foundations than the ‘‘leafiet’’ theory. 


5 Cf. Jesus and the Christian Religion, by Francis A. Henry, 1923, p. 78: 
‘*So then: Jesus, whose Good Tidings told of the heavenly Father and forgive- 
ness of sin, who called men to the higher righteousness of love and a new life in 
union with the Divine, whose religion was so inward and spiritual, so pure from 
all earthly alloy—crowns all with an eschatology so gross and so grotesque! 
Jesus, whose revelation of God and of man was so completely new, of whom 
they said, ‘‘ Never man spoke like this man’’—can only repeat when he touches 
on mankind’s destiny what the vulgarest rabbi had long been preaching in the 
synagogue! Jesus, who knew so well the heart of man and the slow pace of 
human progress, who, as I have said, read the ways of God in the ways of nature, 
wide, gradual, uniform and sure, whose outlook on the world was ever sane, 
calm, clear-eyed—yields to these fantastic dreams of his misguided people, and 
solemnly predicts as close at hand a startling series of preternatural events 
which have never come to pass! One who can believe that will believe anything.’’ 

6 See Bacon ‘‘ Apocalyptic Chapter in the Synoptic Gospels,’’ in Journal of 
Biblical Literature. XXVIII, Part i (1909), and Beginnings of Gospel Story, 
1909, ad loc. 


64 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


It has always been*perceived, and is in fact self-evident, that we 
have in Mk. 18: 3-37 a Little Apocalypse, whose core and kernel is 
the prophecy of the Shiqqutz. It now appears that Torrey is quite 
right in insisting that the prediction of the Shiqqutz in the temple 
as an outrage repeating the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes, and 
the prelude of national ruin, can have originated at no other time 
than precisely the year 40 a.p. The proof lies in the fact that our 
first evangelist, so thoroughly well posted in things Jewish, par- 
ticularly in the field of Old Testament interpretation, leaves no 
doubt whatever of the sense. In Mark there is a certain veil of 
ambiguity, as though this evangelist sought to avoid too close 
identification of the Shiqqutz, and the place and manner of its ap- 
pearance. Matthew removes all uncertainty save for a single trait. 
He is definite in all save that he does not say the Shiqqutz will ap- 
pear in ‘‘the’’ holy place, but only in ‘‘a’’ holy place. Otherwise 
he is quite specific. The Shiqqutz is a material object (éords). It 
is that ‘‘spoken of by Daniel the prophet.’’ There is no personifica- 
tion, and no vagueness, as in Mark’s phrase ‘‘standing where he 
ought not.’’ Matthew shows a definite, positive expectation of the 
fulfilment in the proper sense of ‘Daniel the prophet.’’ Moreover, 
in Matthew the appearance of the Shiqqutz is a real and immediate 
‘prelude of national ruin,’’ a beginning of the last woes; for in- 
stead of the mere prediction of the Coming of the Son of Man ‘‘in 
those days, after that tribulation,’’ which is all we find in Mark, 
Matthew encourages the believer to expect that it will be ‘“‘immedi- 
ately’’ thereafter. 

Why have we this superior definiteness on the part of the later 
evangelist? It is not at all necessary to suppose that Matthew was 
supplied with an independent copy of the Little Apocalypse, as the 
‘leaflet’? theory assumes, to account for this clearer and more 
correct account of the prophecy. Matthew was perfectly familiar 
with the Great Apocalypse, our Book of Daniel, and accepted it as 
infallible authority. When he read the prediction of the Shiqqutz 
in Mk. 13:14 he needed no separate document to inform him that 
the dedvyya in question was the one ‘‘spoken of by Daniel the 
prophet.’’ In contrast with Mark, whose terms ‘‘imply a person or 
personification,’’’ Matthew knows that the Shiqqutz ‘‘spoken of by 
Daniel’’ was a material object, and the place of its appearance the 
temple. The temple being no longer in existence when he wrote (cf. 
Mt. 22:7 with Lk. 14:21), he could not well change Mark’s ‘‘where 
he ought not’’ to “‘in the holy place’’ or ‘‘in the temple.’’ The 
nearest approximation possible (and it is characteristic of the 

7 MecNeile, Comm. on Matthew, 1915, ad loc. 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 65 


method of Matthew to effect his changes of meaning by the most 
microscopic alterations) was to write ‘‘a’’ holy place. A desecration 
of this kind had actually occurred, as we shall see. Further evidence 
of the source of Matthew’s improvements is not wanting. ‘‘ Daniel 
the prophet’’ also described the ‘‘national ruin.’’ The precise lan- 
guage of Daniel 12:1 is employed in Mk. 13:19. Matthew could 
hardly fail, along with his other systematic enhancements of the 
apocalyptic eschatology (cf. Mt. 16:28 with Mk. 9:1), to supply 
from Dan. 9: 24-27 his own conception of the Parousia, and his 
conception includes the encouraging word “‘immediately’’ after the 
Great Tribulation. This, too, represents the sense, if not the lan- 
guage, of Daniel. We may postpone the question as to just how 
Matthew adjusted the Little Apocalypse of Mark to this Seriptural 
standard. He unquestionably had an adjustment of some sort be- 
tween the two, since both Daniel and Mark were to his mind 
authoritative. We are concerned now only with the question of 
sources. The assumption of any non-Markan source save Daniel, to 
whom Matthew makes reference by name, is wholly gratuitous. 
But the fact that Matthew clearly recognizes that the prophecy 
of Mk. 13:14, however veiled, is a reference to the Shiqqutz 
‘“spoken of by Daniel the prophet’’ is important. The clarification 
thus introduced suffices of itself alone to show that Torrey is right 
in insisting that the Prophecy has in view the events of a.p. 39-40. 
Matthew was of those who “‘read and understood.’’ This constitutes 
a critical dilemma. We must either suppose that Jesus foresaw and 
predicted in detail a temple-desecration like that of Antiochus, in- 
cluding the assurance that it would be the ‘‘prelude to national 
disaster’’; or we must suppose that Mark has introduced at this 
point as ‘‘a word of the Lord’’ an apocalypse whose real origin was 
a decade later than the crucifixion, at a time when precisely this 
danger seemed imminent. If ground can be shown for believing 
that an ‘‘apocalypse’’ was in fact granted at just this time to ‘‘ap- 
proved men’’ in the Jerusalem church, and that this apocalypse, or 
revelation, was accepted by the Church as a real ‘‘word of the 
Lord,’’ there will be small hesitation on the part of critics in choos- 
ing between the two alternatives. Of course it does not follow that 
the form in which the ‘‘revelation’’ now appears in Mk. 13: 3-37 is 
identical, verbatim et literatim, with that in which it was first pro- 
mulgated. We merely confirm at this time Torrey’s justly positive 
and definite claim: The prediction of the profanation of the temple 
in Mk. 13:14 has no reasonable explanation unless this prophecy 
really did originate in the year 39-40, and really was accepted by 
the Church, then still centralized in Jerusalem, as ‘‘a word of the 


66 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Lord,’’ that is, a communication from heaven (cf. Rev. 1:1). But 
if this applies to Mark, much more does it apply to Matthew, who is 
far more definite and specific. If Matthew can have taken this 
prophecy from an earlier source (Mark or the ‘‘leaflet’’), the same 
may be said of Mark. 

This result is already fatal to the second of the ‘‘twin pillars’’ 
of accepted critical datings for Mark. If the prophecy of the Shiq- 
qutz, the very heart and core of the Eschatological Discourse, was 
already current in Jerusalem circles in 40 A.D. as a ‘‘word of the 
Lord,’’ it doubtless continued to circulate thereafter, modified in 
form as events required. One cannot argue that the particular form 
in which it is set forth in Mk. 13 must be earlier than 70, unless 
this Markan form displays (in the language of Swete) a conspicu- 
ous ‘‘absence of any indication*that Jerusalem had already fallen 
when it was written.’’ An argument for date is already verging on 
disaster which depends for its cogency on the ‘‘absence’’ of certain 
expected indications, especially when those expected indications 
similarly fail to appear in documents such as Hebrews and 
Clement’s long Epistle to the Corinthians. There is no need to 
mention other writings later than 70 where one expects (but fails 
to find) reference to the fall of Jerusalem. For while to moderns 
familiar with Josephus this event looms very large on the horizon, 
it scarcely affects the relations of Church and Synagogue in the 
first century. We ought rather to ask whether the argument should 
not be reversed, as Wellhausen reverses it. Are there not indica- 
tions, less ‘‘conspicuous’’ indeed than Luke’s but not less real, 
that Jerusalem had already fallen? For Wellhausen does not stand 
alone in denying the alleged ‘‘absence’’ from Mark of reflections 
from the events of 66-70. He holds that such reflections have colored 
Mark’s version of the prophecy, and defines what they really are. 
If the reflections are really present, Mark will only differ in degree 
from Luke, of whose version of the Eschatological Discourse Swete 
justly remarks: 


What this new £6. épnudcews (repeating that of Antiochus) was, St. Luke, 
taught by the event, plainly tells us; for instead of érav ténre 7d BS. xrd. (Mt., 
Mk.,) he writes éray 1%. kukdoupévny bd orpatorédwr ‘Iepovocadiu. The pres- 
ence of the Roman army round the Holy City was itself a Bdédvyyua of the 
worst kind, and one which foreboded coming ruin. The words of Daniel 
seemed to find a second fulfilment; Rome had taken the place of Syria. Cf. 
Jos. Ant. x. 11. 7 kat 5) ratra Audy cvvéBn radeiv r@ Over brd’ Avtibxou Tod ’Emiga- 
voids. . . Tov adrov dé rpdrov 6 Aavindos Kal epi THs Pwualwy pyeuovias dvéypawe kal ore 
bm avrayv épnuwbhoera. 


Luke (pace Harnack) is ‘‘taught by the event’’ (and perhaps by 


THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE 67 


Josephus) in his modifications of the Hschatological Discourse of 
Mark. The question we shall ultimately have to consider is whether 
Mark was not also ‘‘taught by the event’’ (though not by Josephus) 
in his modifications of the Little Apocalypse. If so we have a posi- 
tive proof of date later than 70. In this respect much may be 
learned toward the date of Mark from the famous Eschatological 
Discourse. The mere ‘‘absence’’ of teachings from ‘“‘the event’’ 
(which after all only means our own failure to perceive them) 
would prove very little indeed; for this absence (real or fancied) 
is a constant phenomenon of Christian writings known to be but 
little later than 70 a.p., in which reflections of the fall of Jerusalem 
might well be expected. Their seeming absence is inconclusive. 
Their presence, on the contrary, if demonstrable, will be decisive 
for a date later than 70 a.p. The later dating will at least apply to 
the adaptation, though we continue to date the prophecy itself in 
its original form in 40 «Lp. 

The question of date after 70 may be postponed. Our present 
enquiry should be whether the Gospel of Mark contains any indica- 
tion of date later than 40. Our immediate concern is with the Little 
Apocalypse, where any changes to be expected as a consequence of 
teaching by “‘the event’’ would most probably begin to appear. 


- For the cloud which loomed so black and fateful at the end of 40 


had already most unexpectedly cleared away in the first months of 
41, giving place to the sunniest skies which Israel had known since 
the glorious days of the Maccabees. New and unexpected disasters 
came, it is true, with the death of Agrippa I in the summer of 44. 
These grew thicker and darker in successive years until the supreme 
catastrophe of 70. But if there was occasion at all for change in the 
form of the prophecy in consequence of failure to correspond with 
the event, it was in the years immediately succeeding its original 
promulgation, when the assassination of Caligula suddenly dissi- 
pated the danger, and the accession of Agrippa I to the title of 
‘‘king,’’ and soon after to all the dominion and sovereignty of his 
grandfather Herod the Great, carried the Pharisees to triumph 
beyond their fondest dreams. If Mark contains elsewhere nothing 
to indicate a date later than 40 a.p. we may perhaps dispense our- 
selves from the task of scrutinizing the Eschatological Discourse to 
see if the incorporated prophecy does not bear the marks of adjust- 
ment to this extraordinary reversal of conditions. If we find else- 
where clear indications of a date later than 40 we may well expect 
that some trace of adjustments will appear in the Eschatological 
Discourse also, perhaps traces sufficient to bring down the date of 
the work as it stands beyond the overthrow of Jerusalem. 


68 : THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


In any event the conventional dating of Mark between the death 
of the Roman Apostles (ca. 67) and the overthrow of Jerusalem 
(70) is thoroughly discredited. Both termini are untrustworthy. 
The ancients who supplied the earlier terminus were merely trying 
to account for the criticism of the Elder that the work lacked 
‘‘order,’’ and the moderns who supplied the latter by reasoning 
from the ‘‘absence of any indication that Jerusalem had already 
fallen,’’ were alike drawing inferences from data which require to 
be tested again. If the unexpected deliverance of the year 41 has 
left no perceptible marks on the Little Apocalypse, we surely can- 
not reason to an early date from the apparent ‘‘absence’’ of similar 
marks of the catastrophe of the year 70. We are thrown back upon 
the internal evidence. The data of the Gospel itself must decide. All 
barriers are down from 40 to 95. It remains for critics to fix a date 
as reliably as they can within these limits by accepted methods. The 
testimony of antiquity must be reappraised by comparison with the 
contents of the work, and the internal indications, such as they are, 
must be scrutinized anew. It remains to be seen whether results can 
be thus attained which will place the difficult problem of gospel 
origins on a surer foundation than hitherto. 


CHAPTER VI 
PROOF AND PROBABILITY 


From the nature of the case the critic must rely upon the internal 
evidence of a document to determine the upper limit of date. Ex- 
tracts from the work and references to it by later writers will 
establish the lower limit beyond question. But the mere absence of 
mention in later documents is powerless to prove non-existence. Such 
negative witness is not wholly valueless, but those who hold to an 
earlier date will invoke at once the principle of the unreliability 
of arguments e silentio. Evidences contained within the document 
itself are almost the sole recourse for fixing the date after which the 
writing must have appeared, and by sufficient insistence on special 
treatment it is possible so to weaken even these as to make them 
practically unavailable. If the foreknowledge of Jesus and the 
exactitude of the record are placed sufficiently high, no amount of 
evidence in the record of acquaintance with known events will prove 
- a subsequent date, for no room at all is left for alteration by ad- 
justment to the event. But such dogmatic assumptions are no longer 
permissible. Reasonable criticism will admit an unusual degree of 
foresight on the part of One greater than all the prophets; but un- 
limited drafts on a doctrine of prescience on the part of the Speaker 
and exactitude on the part of the reporter of the saying make en- 
quiry useless. They increase the burden of proof for the critic to the 
point of excluding historico-critical methods altogether. Hither, 
then, the ordinary rules for predictive utterance and its transmis- 
sion must be followed, as in other documents; or it must be frankly 
admitted that dates for the gospel record are not established by 
critical methods, but are assumed without verification. The present 
chapter will be devoted to a few illustrative instances, showing the 
limitations of internal evidence due to difficulties such as the provy- 
ing of a universal negative, assumptions of peculiar foreknowledge 
or exactitude of the record, and the like. Even inconclusive argu- 
ments call for some consideration, and must be allowed for in the 
final verdict. 

Certain prima facie considerations making a date for Mark so 
early as 40 a.p. improbable will no doubt at once suggest them- 
selves. Some have already been hinted at in referring to composi- 
tion by the lad John, son of Mary the hostess of the Church, at a 


70 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


period before the dispersion of its leaders through the persecution 
of Herod Agrippa (42 a.p.). Such a supposition appears improbable 
in itself and is difficult to reconcile with the internal phenomena; 
for these not only suggest a long-continued process of growth, in- 
volving the use of partly duplicate sources, but fully justify the 
Elder’s complaint of lack of ‘‘order.’’? Assuming Markan author- 
ship, the earlier the date the greater the improbability. 

Objections e silentio are easily drawn from the Pauline Epistles, 
written during the decade 50-60, ten years later than the earliest 
assumed authorship of the Gospel, five years after Paul and Barna- 
bas had taken the young evangelist as the companion of their great 
missionary journey to Cyprus and Anatolia. These Epistles come 
from the very midst of the period when, after temporary separa- 
tion from Paul to accompany Barnabas, Mark reappears as a 
trusted follower and fellow-worker with Paul (Col. 4:10; II Tim. 
4:11). The absence of any indication, even the smallest, that Paul 
knew of the existence of such a writing, to say nothing of using or 
commending it, shares the weakness of all arguments e silentio, but 
it presents no small difficulty to supporters of the extreme early 
date. 

These objections to a date within either decade, 40-50, or 50-60, 
are not inconsiderable. They will claim consideration later, in con- 
nection with our constructive study, involving revaluation of the 
testimony of the Elder, and an enquiry into the relation between 
Mark and the Pauline Epistles and teaching. But if the burden of 
proof imposed on the critic be made sufficiently great, as explained 
above, they need not prove fatal. For the present we may limit: 
ourselves to specific data, including an instance regarded by Well- 
hausen as the only passage of the Gospel, outside the Eschatological 
Discourse, which affords a clear indication of date. Inconclusive as 
they are, the cumulative effect of these data must be allowed for. 
The Eschatological Discourse itself must be reserved for more ex- 
tended treatment. 

(1) The series of teachings on Renunciation and Reward which 
occupy the section of Mark descriptive of the Journey to Martyr- 
dom from Caesarea Philippi to Jerusalem, culminates in the offer 
of James and John to share Jesus’ baptism of death and cup of 
martyrdom (Mk. 10: 35-45). Disregarding the apparent sacramen- 
tarian interest which has here conjoined two sayings, one on the 
baptism of suffering to which Jesus is looking forward (Lk. 12:50), 
the other a simple reference to the cup he must drink (cf. Mt. 20: 
22 f.), we may properly ask whether this reference to the martyr- 
dom of the two sons of Zebedee is likely to have been inserted in 


PROOF AND PROBABILITY 71 


the Gospel before either of them had (in the language of one who 
claims to be reporting Papias’ reference to the fulfilment of the 
prophecy) ‘‘fulfilled Christ’s prophecy. concerning them and their 
own confession and undertaking on his behalf.’”* 

The martyrdom of James marked the epoch of the Dispersion of 
the Twelve (42 a.p.). His brother John was still living, one of the 
‘*Pillars’’? of the Jerusalem church, when Paul went up with 
Barnabas for a settlement of the issue regarding his mission to the 
Gentiles (ca. 46). The younger son of Zebedee may have met the 
martyr fate which Papias and some other early reporters ascribe 
to him at the hands of “‘the Jews’’ in 62 A.D., in company with the 
other James, brother of the Lord and head of the Jerusalem church. 
The matter is disputed. Just when (if ever) this prophecy was 
fulfilled in the case of John remains doubtful. There is no doubt 
whatever regarding the fate of James in 42 (Acts 12:1). 

Let us not deny the abstract possibility that Jesus might have 
foreseen this martyr fate of the two brothers, nor the possibility 
that the prediction (for which in 40 a.p. there seemed as yet to be 
no present occasion) might be recorded at that time by an evangel- 
ist who certainly leaves many sayings quite unrecorded. Both sup- 
positions are possible. But the critic must measure relative proba- 
‘bilities. The real question is whether if we found the narrative in 
any other, uncanonical, writing, we should not say at once: ‘‘ Here 
is plain evidence that the writer knew of the martyrdom of James 
in 42 and probably that of John also. He records the prediction be- 
cause it was confirmed by the event.’’ The inference may perhaps 
be avoided if we make special rules for canonical writings not ap- 
plicable to others. But the cost is too high. If we claim exemption 
from the ordinary rules of criticism we must consent to renounce 
critical authority for whatever date we finally do assume. 

(2) Fairness to advocates of a very early date compels us to 
admit that the mere presence of legendary features in the narrative 
is a very unreliable criterion. We have already adverted to the ease 
with which love of marvel can find opportunity for legendary de- 
velopment in writings of the nature of our Gospels; for the very 
object of these is to “‘prove the doctrine all divine’’ (largely by 
dint of miracle), and historico-critical discrimination was conspicu- 
ous by its absence even from secular historians of this period. For 
the Christian preacher the rule was the same as for the teacher of 
haggada in the Synagogue: ‘‘ All things for edification’’ (I Cor. 
14: 26). 

1Georgius Hamartolus, quoting ‘‘the second book’’ of Papias’ Inter- 
pretations. 


72 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Too much weight should therefore not be attached to the un- 
historical character of Markan narratives such as the Cursing of 
the Fig Tree, the two accounts of the Feeding of the Multitude, 
the Walking on the Sea, and the Gerasene Demoniac. Geographical 
and chronological inaccuracies may have some weight, but in view 
of the uncertainty attending the sense to be given to the preposi- 
tion ‘‘according to’’ (card) in the title, these too are inconclusive. 
They contribute something, but are not decisive on the question of 
date. 

Even the relatively unhistorical attitude toward the movement 
of the Baptist, as compared with that assumed in the Q material, 
proves no more than a relative inferiority of Mark in this particular 
to the Second Source. It is quite true that to our second evangelist 
John the Baptist has no independent significance. He is merely 
Elias who must anoint the Christ before he can be made known, 
whether to Israel, or even to himself; for so Trypho the Jew also 
points out to Justin in the Dialogue. Mark depicts John the Baptist 
solely from this depreciatory point of view. He is the Forerunner 
of the Christ, Khas redivivus, not the inaugurator of a great pro- 
phetic revival in Israel on his own account, as in Q, which describes 
John’s perplexity when told of ‘‘the works of the Christ.’’ Hence 
the story of the Baptist’s martyrdom, interjected in Mk. 6: 17-29 
a propos of Herod’s Exclamation at hearing of Jesus” mighty works, 
should not be held too strictly to account. The narrative is em- 
bellished not only with traits drawn from the story of Esther, but 
patently colored by the story of Elijah, plotted against by Jezebel. 
H. J. Holtzmann, as is well known, characterized it as ‘‘the pattern 
of legend,’’ comparing it with the sober and dispassionate account 
of the prophet’s death given by Josephus (Ant. XVIII, v. 2). It 
is strange to hear of Antipas as a ‘‘king”’ offering half of the king- 
dom which was not his, to a ‘“‘little maid’’ (xopdovv) who was 
really a widow some twenty-eight years of age, and either already, 
or very shortly after, the wife of the ‘‘Philip’’ who here appears 
as injured husband of Herodias! It is also strange to hear of a 
birthday feast given by ‘‘Herod’’ to ‘‘the great ones of Galilee,’’ 
consequently in the palace at Tiberias, from which a ‘‘guard”’ 
(czexovdAdrwp) is sent to bring the head of the prophet in prison at 
Machaerus, several days’ journey away. (The place of imprison- 
ment is given by Josephus, who has no motive for misrepresenting 
the facts.) One wonders what takes the Judean prophet away from 
his commission to preach repentance to Israel, assigning him to a 
sort of court chaplaincy in the palace in Galilee, where he is kept by 
the profligate Edomite-Samaritan Tetrarch in a manner’ suggestive 


PROOF AND PROBABILITY 73 


of Paul at Caesarea, prisoner of the corrupt and profligate Felix. 
Why should John leave his baptism of repentance preached to 
Israel in the wilderness of Judaea, to rebuke the adulterous relation 
of Antipas and Herodias in Galilee? The omissions of Luke and the 
corrections of Matthew both bear significant witness that (to the 
mind of these later evangelists at least) Mark’s narrative falls con- 
siderably short of historicity. 

But again, does the lack of historicity necessarily prove a late 
date? All that can reasonably be claimed is an improbability. The 
young man Mark, if he actually wrote at a period but shortly after 
the events of 36-37, which according to Josephus had recalled to 
the popular mind the recent martyrdom of the prophet, will have 
shown himself highly receptive to popular tales illustrative of the 
vengeance of God on impiety, and far less acquainted than we 
should expect with the real nature of the Baptist’s movement. He is 
at least much below the Second Source or his contemporary Jose- 
phus in this respect. 

It is possible, however, that the distinctive feature of Mark’s 
story of the Baptist’s fate, a feature quite foreign to Old Testament 
story (for Jezebel is not accused of adultery), and at the same time 
alien to the real calling of John, is not due to the unaided imagina- 
tion of the evangelist. It cannot be accounted for as a reflection of 
the scene of Paul before Festus (Acts 25: 18 ff.) ; for while the rela- 
- tions of the notorious Bernice with her brother Agrippa II were 
perhaps already regarded as incestuous, nothing appears of this in 
the story of Acts. Unlike the Baptist, Paul seems to have reserved 
his criticisms on the morals of Bernice for a more propitious occa- 
sion. 

But in Dio Cassius we do find a strict parallel to Mark’s scene of 
public denunciation of the adulterous pair, followed by the behead- 
ing of the bold preacher of morality. It 1s an occurrence of the year 
75 A.D. at Rome, in which the actors are three: (1) Titus, fresh 
from his triumph over Jerusalem, living in open adultery with (2) 
the same notorious Bernice, daughter of the idolized Agrippa I and 
sister of Agrippa II, Judaea’s nominal ‘‘king’’; lastly (3) two 
eynic reformers who expiate, the one by scourging, the other with 
his life, their bold attempt to express the popular contempt and 
hatred for this union. Has Mark’s story of the Fate of John been 
colored by this event? 

It was indeed not only a bitter humiliation for the conquered 
Jews, but (in spite of the sympathies of Dio Cassius on the side of 
Titus) so distasteful even to Roman morals that Juvenal alludes 
to the scandal. Titus himself yielded to popular outcry to the extent 


74 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


of putting this Jewish mistress away. But the story should be told 
in Dio Cassius’ own words (History LXV, xv.) : 


Bernice was at the height of her power and consequently came to Rome 
along with her brother Agrippa. The latter was accorded pretorial honors, 
while she dwelt in the palace and cohabited with Titus. She expected to be 
married to him and behaved in all respects as his wife. But when he per- 
ceived that the Romans were displeased at the situation (a Jewess as 
empress!) he sent her away; for various reports were in circulation (cf. 
Juvenal Satire VI, 155 f.). At this time too certain sophists of the cynic 
school managed somehow to slip into the city: first Diogenes entered the 
theatre when it was full of men and denounced them (Titus and Bernice) 
in a long, abusive speech, for which he was flogged; after him Heras, who 
showed no greater disposition to be obedient, gave vent to many senseless 
bawlings in the true cynic (dog-like) manner, and for this behavior was’ 
beheaded. 


One cannot, of course, dogmatically maintain that the diatribes 
of street preachers at Rome in 75 against Titus and Bernice, fol- 
lowed by scourging and beheading, have had any influence upon 
Mark’s account of the martyrdom of John, even if the scene of the 
prophet denouncing the adulterous pair be legendary. This particu- 
lar trait of the story in which Mark parallels the Roman incident 
is indeed out of keeping with the ministry of John as otherwise 
known, and the whole anecdote undeniably abounds with unhis- 
torical features. But who can say that it was precisely the occur- 
rence of 75 a.p. which led Mark to this specific explanation of 
John’s imprisonment, rather than general popular resentment at 
the murderous impiety of Antipas? The coincidence is somewhat 
striking, but only the cumulative evidence of several such would 
compel the inference that Mark was composed later than 75 A.D. 

(3) According to Mark the conspiracies against Jesus’ life pro- 
ceed from a combination of ‘‘ Pharisees and Herodians’’ (Mk. 3:6; 
12:13). In addition he explains the warning of Jesus which in 
Lk. 12:1 is given as ‘‘ Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees’? and 
in Mt. 16:5, 11 f. as ‘‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees’’ (cf. Mt. 3:7; 16:1) to be a warning against ‘‘the 
leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod’’ (Mk. 8:15). As 
shown by the present writer in a recent article (Journal of Biblical 
Interature XX XIX (1920), p. 102 ff.), the witness of Epiphanius 
regarding these ‘‘ Herodians’’ that they applied the prophecy ‘‘The 
sceptre shall not depart from Judah’’ (Gen. 49:10) to ‘‘Herod’’ 
is anything but ‘‘absurd.’’? On the contrary this represents pre- 


2 Lake and Foakes-Jackson, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. I, p. 119. 


PROOF AND PROBABILITY 79 


cisely the hope of Jewish nationalists of the Pharisean party, such 
as Josephus, in the time of Agrippa I. 

It was, in fact, the key-note of the policy of this wily adventurer 
to win over the Pharisees to his support by a great parade of devo- 
tion to the Law, and constant emphasis upon his descent (on his 
mother’s side) from the Hasmonean priest-kings. By constant harp- 
ing on his Jewish descent he hoped to prove to this leading element 
of his people that with him as king the sceptre (which was fast 
slipping into the hands of Rome) would in reality not ‘‘depart 
from Judah.’’ Agrippa’s attack upon the Church, as already 
pointed out, was a significant step in this policy of conciliation of 
the Pharisees, which according to Acts 12:3 met immediate re- 
sponse. Had the story of Mark, depicting the ‘‘Pharisees and 
Herodians’’ as conspiring against the life.of Jesus, been cast in the 
days of Herod Agrippa I, instead of the days of Herod Antipas, 
son of Herod, the Edomite usurper, and Malthace, the Samaritan 
woman, nothing could have been more natural. True, we cannot say 
that such an alliance was impossible in the earlier period. But three 
considerations stand opposed: (1) In the words of the learned 
editors of the volume just referred to, “‘there is no other evidence 
as to the existence of a party, much less a sect, of Herodians at this 
time.’’ (2) In view of the intense hatred of all loyal Jews for the 
Herod family down to the adoption by Agrippa I of his pro-Phari- 
sean policy it is difficult to see how such a sect or party could exist, 
or if they did exist how they could enter into friendly alliance with 
the Pharisees. (3) In all three instances of Mark’s suggestion of 
this combination his representation is altered or omitted by both 
later Synoptists. The sole exception is Mt. 22:16, where no correc- 
tion of Mark is made. It is hardly matter for surprise that Cheyne, 
in his article s.v. ‘‘ Herodians’’ in E'ncycl. Bibl. should say bluntly 
of the occurrence of the term in Mk. 3:6: ‘‘This is evidently a 
mistake. In the country of the Tetrarch Antipas there could not be 
a party called ‘Herodians.’ ”’ 

By speaking of Antipas as a “‘king’’ in Mk. 6: 14 ff. this evangel- 
ist shows that his knowledge of the Herods and their dynastic fail- 
ures and successes is far from accurate. The question cannot well 
be kept back, in view of the three considerations just mentioned, 
whether Mark has not antedated the alliance between Pharisees and 
‘‘Herodians,’’ carrying back Agrippa’s Jewish party along with 
his title. If so we can hardly suppose the Gospel to have been writ- 
ten a year before the pro-Pharisaic policy of Agrippa was devel- 
oped. In fact the very domicile of Mark in the persecution of 41-42 


76 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


was the refuge of the Church against these same assailants “‘the 
Pharisees with the Herodians’’ (Acts 12:11 f.). If the connection 
between John surnamed Mark and this Gospel be at all close, a 
date comparatively remote from these matters of Palestinian con- 
cern will be more probable than one in the very midst of the in- 
trigues of Agrippa, or immediately after. 

But again the burden of proof is too heavy. The non-existence of 
a party of ‘‘Herodians’’ in Galilee in the time of Jesus is beyond 
the power of the historical critic to prove. Once more the student 
must be satisfied with cumulative probabilities. Future historical 
critics may suspect the historicity of popular writers of our own 
time who speak of Democrats and ‘‘Republicans’’ in the period 
of Andrew Jackson. But to prove that there was no party called 
Republican at that time might be found difficult twenty centuries 
later. 

The three instances given will suffice to make clear the difficulty 
of establishing a definite date, for Mark. References and employ- 
ments make it certain that it had already circulated widely before 
100. But the silence of earlier writers is inconclusive. Internal 
evidence suggests here and there acquaintance with events which 
occurred as late as 75. But prophecies apparently adjusted in form 
to the event may only repeat with remarkable exactitude a predic- 
tion which was closely verified. If the evangelist seems to show 
too little knowledge of affairs which would be well known to one 
writing under the conditions of an early date, it may always be 
that the eritic’s own knowledge is at fault. He is required to prove 
a universal negative. If, on the contrary, Mark shows a knowledge 
too great for one not “‘taught by the event’’ this also will be in- 
decisive to some, because he may be supposed to rest on supernatural 
prescience. If the internal evidence of this Gospel had afforded 
clear references to events contemporaneous with the work itself 
our problem would never have arisen. We have no right to expect 
it will be solved by sudden discovery, as it were by catching the 
evangelist napping in some anachronism. It can only be solved by 
long and patient enquiry, and not without impartial weighing of 
pros and cons. The conditions are such that strict demonstration 
is unattainable. It will always continue to be possible to date this 
Gospel as early as 40 or as late as 95. The most that can be expected 
is a preponderance of evidence in favor of some date between these 
two extremes. he present work is addressed to readers who seek 
the guidance of criticism and are willing to submit to the prepon- 
derance of evidence. 


PROOF AND PROBABILITY 17 


For constructive enquiry we have four main lines of approach: 

(1) The Eschatology, to be studied in the light of modifications 
of current Christian doctrine since the crisis of 40 A.p. 

(2) Traces of influence from the Epistolary Literature down to 
the period of Hebrews and First Peter. Traces of Pauline teaching, 
if not of the Epistles themselves, should be discoverable if really 
existent. They would at least advance the upper limit of date some 
twenty years beyond 40 A.D. 

(3) Evidences of sources and structure. It is generally admitted 
that we do not possess the Gospel in its earliest form. Its proper 
ending has disappeared, whether by accident or design, and has 
been replaced by appendices in some manuscripts, by narratives 
inconsistent with Mark’s data in later Gospels. We must bestow 
the name ‘‘Gospel of Mark’’ on the work as known to ourselves. 
The question of date applies to this. But through what stages of 
development this ultimate composition has passed, from sources 
to Ur-Markus, and from Ur-Markus to the present form, is one of 
the moot points of criticism which has no small bearing on the ques- 
tion of date. 

(4) Among the phenomena bearing on sources and structure 
should perhaps be counted the evidences of translation from Ara- 
maic. These, however, are so distinct in their nature as to fall into 
a class by themselves, though in so far as they bear upon questions 
of date and origin the problem is only as to whether the translation 
is by one hand throughout, affecting uniformly the entire Gospel, 
so as to indicate a direct transfer of the work as a whole from some 
Aramaic-speaking community; or whether the phenomena may not 
be accounted for by selection from material of various date and 
derivation brought into uniformity of diction by the final redactor. 
In the former case a somewhat different view might have to be 
taken of the data referred to under (3). In the latter case the evi- 
dences of stratification, indicating a more or less prolonged period 
of growth before the Gospel came to its present form, would only be 
confirmed. We can only bespeak the reader’s patience in this slow 
approach to a conclusion by preponderant evidence, in view of the 
basic importance of the question. 

Our more detailed study of the internal evidence must begin with 
the Markan Eschatology. But in returning to this enquiry we must 
bear in mind that indications of a date later than 70 a.p. are not 
wholly wanting elsewhere in Mark. It is the rigorous maintenance 
of the distinction between Proof and Probability which compels 
the fair-minded critic to treat these evidences as subsidiary only. 


78 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Individually they are inconclusive. Jointly they may still be so. 
Taken together with all the remainder of the evidence they may 
establish a critical conclusion of reasonable certainty. 


CHAPTER VII 


CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN THE PAULINE 
PERIOD 


Our preliminary study of the Eschatological Discourse of Mark 
has shown that while the date 40 a.p. can be definitely fixed as a 
terminus a quo for this Gospel, the terminus ad quem remains 
highly uncertain. In fact the attempt (often still made) to fix it 
prior to the overthrow of Jerusalem (an attempt which Wellhausen 
among others would reverse, maintaining. that the evangelist looks 
back upon the events of 66-70 as “‘already past’’) is at least illusive.. 
We may not surrender at once to the somewhat dogmatic decision of 
Wellhausen, but we can no longer concur with the easy-going in- 
ferences of earlier commentators who base their arguments upon 
an alleged ‘‘absence of any indication that Jerusalem had already 
fallen.’’ 

A Little Apocalypse or “‘prophecy’’ certainly came into circula- 
tion among the churches, whether in oral or written form, during 
the crisis of 40 a.p., its distinctive feature being a prediction of the 
desecration of the temple as a sign of the Coming. This profanation 
prophecy, perhaps approved from the beginning as ‘‘a word of the 
Lord,’’ has found embodiment in the Eschatological Discourse of 
Mark (Mk. 18: 3-37). Has it, or has it not, in its Markan form, 
discernible traces of adaptation to subsequent events? In the Lukan 
transcript (Lk. 21: 7-386) it is generally admitted that the striking 
changes, particularly the alteration in form of the ‘‘abomination”’ 
(Shiqqutz) prophecy, are due to the fact that this evangelist has 
been ‘‘taught by the event.’’ Mark, much less careful in historical 
statements than Luke, and perhaps lacking historical records 
available to the later evangelist, has not these more striking adapta- 
tions. But does he really present the Little Apocalypse in unaltered 
form; or can we point to instances in Mark also where the original 
meaning appears to have been modified or obscured? A proper 
answer to this question will require some scrutiny of developments 
in Christian eschatology between the crisis of 40 a.p. under Caius, 
and its renewal under Nero. 

The most striking event of this period, so far as eschatology is 
concerned, was the sudden passage of Jewish (and for a brief time 
also of Christian) feeling in 40-41 a.p. from the nadir of despair 


80 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


to the zenith of exultation. Immediately after this the Church 
reached in 42 a.p. what it long continued to regard as the decisive 
epoch of its history. We may call it the Epoch of the Dispersion. 
If the dispersion of the year 42 produced no traceable effect on 
Christian teaching, it may be held that the Little Apocalypse also, 
brought forth by the agony of suspense in the last months of Ca- 
ligula’s reign, has remained as it were encysted in the Eschatological 
Discourse of Mk. 18, untouched, unaltered, unaffected by the course 
of events. In that case it is surely hopeless to expect that dis- 
coverable marks should remain of the crisis of 66-70, a crisis of 
much less concern to the early Church, however important in mod- 
ern eyes. Surely one cannot argue an early date for the Eschatologi- 
eal Discourse (Mk. 13) from the ‘‘absence of any indication that 
Jerusalem had already fallen,’’ if at the same time one maintains 
that the Little Apocalypse passed unchanged through the crisis of 
the Epoch of the Dispersion, leaving no marks by which the most 
careful criticism could detect the “‘teaching of the event.’’ For 
according to the majority of critics the profanation prophecy was 
at the time not in written, but only in oral, form. In short one must 
either hold with Torrey to the exact date 39-40 a.p. for the entire 
Gospel, rejecting all pretence of detection by criticism of reflec- 
tions of subsequent events in the record, whether in the earlier or 
later crisis; or else one must make critical search for such marks 
of transmission. Only, if the prophecy really originated in 39-40, 
we must search in the Discourse for the marks not of one adjust- 
ment only, but also for those of a possible second, in 66-70 and later, 
when for the second time the expected fulfilment of ‘‘Daniel the 
prophet’’ had failed to take place. 

For proper determination of the fundamental question, whether 
such reflections of current events are, or are not, traceable in the 
record, two preliminary enquiries will be found needful. We must 
ascertain as closely as our sources allow (1) what Christian feeling 
was toward the events in question. (2) We must also form the most 
reliable and definite possible conception of that Little Apocalypse, 
or prophecy of temple-profanation, which was promulgated ca. 40 
A.D. as a “‘word of the Lord,’’ unless we are to regard it as an 
erroneous forecast made by Jesus himself. Thereafter (3) we may 
attempt to determine from the Eschatological Discourse in its vari- 
ous forms, in comparison with all other means of determining the 
original content of the Apocalypse, what changes (if any) have 
been introduced, whether by Mark or his predecessors, to accom- 
modate the prophecy to events as they transpired. 

(1) It has already been intimated that ancient and modern feel- 


EARLY CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY 81 


ings differ somewhat as to the relative importance attached to the 
two periods of crisis, that which ancient tradition established as 
a kind of epoch, ‘‘twelve years’’ after the crucifixion and resurrec- 
tion (that is, 42 a.p.1); and that which to moderns, familiar with 
the vivid story of Josephus, stands out as the real period of the 
downfall of unbelieving Israel and the starting point of a new 
era of Christianity as a completely denationalized faith. Traces un- 
doubtedly exist in early Christian writings of the great catastrophe 
related by Josephus. One of these, Mt. 22:7, we shall have occa- 
sion to refer to presently. Another is (in the judgment of most 
critics) the Eschatological Discourse in its Lukan form, whether 
this evangelist has been taught “‘by the event’’ only, or (as many 
hold) has the additional advantage of having read Josephus. But 
all students of early Christian literature will certainly admit that 
we have surprisingly little reverberation of the catastrophe. The 
destruction of the temple and the disastrous issue of the rebellion 
seem to have left (so far as Christian writings are concerned) 
scarcely a ripple. In point of fact it was the Synagogue, not the 
temple, which was the real opponent of the Church; and the effect 
of the disappearance of the worldly-minded Sadducees, with their 
outworn sacrificial ritual in the temple, largely divorced from the 
true religious life of the people, was really on the whole to 
strengthen essential Judaism. Pharisaism, the religion of scribe and 
Synagogue, now for the first time absorbed all the remaining ener- 
gies of Israel’s religious life. The Sadducee and the Zealot having 
perished in the national catastrophe, scribe and Pharisee had free 
course and were glorified. Our evangelists when they think of 
Judaism mean the Judaism of the Synagogue. Temple, Zealot, and 
Sadducee come in occasionally by way of archaism; but not even 
so does the reader obtain a clear conception of what a Sadducee 
actually was. He appears in Acts as the adherent of a heretical sect, 
much as in Hegesippus and the heresiologues. 

The simplest explanation, then, of the comparative indifference 
of church writers to the destruction of the temple in 70, is that to 
their mind the parting of the ways had taken place thirty years 
before. Pharisaism, not the Sadducean hierocracy, was the real foe 
of Christianity. And this was well understood. For traces are still 
abundant of the effect produced upon the church in Jerusalem by 
the alliance of the ‘‘ Pharisees and Herodians’’ against them; when 
Agrippa, on his accession in 41, made it the key-note of his policy 

1 Ancient chronographers dated the crucifixion in ‘‘the year of the two 


Gemini,’’ that is, the consuls Lucius Rubellius and Caius Fufius Geminus 
(29-30 a.D.). 


82 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


to court favor with these adherents of the Law, and signalized this 
policy by attacking the Church. By a memorable coincidence the 
martyrdom of James, son of Zebedee, followed by the release of 
Peter when about to share the fate of James, occurred exactly 
‘““twelve years’’ from the crucifixion. A whole group of early au- 
thorities, beginning with the Preaching of Peter,’ report as a com- 
mand of Jesus ‘‘after twelve years go forth into the world, that no 
man may say ‘we did not hear.’ ’’ The alleged command is of course 
only the reflection of what actually took place. Not only Peter 
(Acts 12:17), but others also, including probably some of the 
‘brethren of the Lord’’ (I Cor. 9:5), now ‘‘went forth into the 
world’’ proclaiming the glad tidings. Luke, it is true, adopts a 
slightly different chronology,? taking the death of Agrippa (44 
A.D.) and the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas from 
Antioch (45-46) as the beginning of the Era of the Dispersion. We 
must also allow for some reaction in 45-46 when the Pillars left 
Gentile missions to Paul and Barnabas (Gal. 2:1-10). But Petrine 
tradition even earlier than Luke claimed Peter as the real Apostle 
to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), Jerusalem as the point of departure, 
and ‘‘twelve years’’ after the crucifixion as marking the ‘‘going 
forth into the world.’’ 

To Christian minds the disasters which fell stroke upon stroke 
after 42 a.p. on Jerusalem and Judea, beginning with the sudden 
death of Agrippa the persecutor, darling of the Pharisees, in 44, 
followed by an unprecedented famine (45-46), civil war, and hope- 
less subjection under the yoke of Rome (46), were “‘successive pun- 
ishments sent upon the Jews.’’* They were looked upon by Chris- 
tians as divine confirmations of the ‘‘command.’’ Paul, who writes 
to the Thessalonians very shortly after (50 A.p.) on how ‘‘the wrath 
(of God) has at last come upon’’ this faithless people, ‘‘who both 
slew the prophets and the Lord Jesus, and drave out us,’’ clearly 
reflects the contemporary feeling of the Church as a whole. It held 
that the day of grace for Israel was over in 42, when Pharisees and 
Herodians, with the general approval of ‘‘the Jews’’ (Acts 12:3), 
““drave out’’ the preachers of the new gospel, and reaped ‘‘the 
wrath’’ which they had so long stored up against themselves. After 
this the siege and overthrow of Jerusalem, or (as Mt. 22: 7 expresses 

2Ca. 100. For other traces of this early epoch see Harnack, Chronologie der 
altchristlichen Literatur, I, p. 240 f. and Bacon, ‘‘Wrath unto the Uttermost’’ 
in Expositor, VIII, 143 (Nov. 1922), p. 373. 

3 See Bacon, ‘‘The Chronological Scheme of Acts’’ in Harvard Theological 
Review, Vol. XIV (April, 1921). 


4An ancient catena on Jn. 3:36 refers to the succession of catastrophes 
from 44 to 70 in these terms. 


EARLY CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY 83 


it in an addition of this evangelist to the parable of the Sighted 
Invitation) the wrath of the King who ‘‘sent forth his armies and 
destroyed those murderers and burned up their city,’’ was only 
the final catastrophe. The overthrow of a.p. 70 marked the inevitable 
end, but the first decisive steps on the downward path were taken 
by the nation as a whole in the crisis of 41-42. 

(2) The same epistle of the year in which Paul voices the feeling 
of Christians generally toward ‘‘the Jews’’ (I Thess. 2: 14-16) as 
under ‘‘the wrath,’’ makes direct reference to ‘‘a word of the 
Lord’’ of a highly apocalyptic character. So thoroughly does this 
‘‘word’’ partake of the usual tone of ‘‘prophecy’’ as exhibited in 
early Christian documents, and so little does it conform to the well- 
authenticated utterances of Jesus in his earthly teaching, that our 
leading exegetes, such as von Dobschiitz and Frame, regard it as 
far more probable that the term ‘‘a word of the Lord’’ is here em- 
ployed not with reference to sayings reported from the Galilean 
teaching of Jesus, but to utterances of church ‘‘prophets,’’ who 
claimed to speak, and were understood to speak, by “‘the spirit of 
Jesus’’ (Acts 16:7; Rev. 1:1; 19:10). In other terms Paul in 
I Thess. 4: 15-17 is giving for the ‘‘comfort’’ of members of the 
Thessalonian church, a Little Apocalypse. The substance of this 
- ““prophecy’’ was as follows: 


The Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice 
of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall 
rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be 
caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever 
be with the Lord. 

The citation is of course at this point (I Thess. 4:15-17) re- 
stricted to those elements of the prophecy which would serve to 
comfort disciples in Thessalonica in anxiety as to the participation 
‘ of certain departed friends in the expected messianic kingdom. 
How much more there was of similar character we have little means 
of judging. However, the supposition is reasonable that the dis- 
tinctive peculiarities of the two Thessalonian Epistles, both of them 
concerned with the same conditions and problems, both having 
eschatological questions as their sole doctrinal interest, are in some 
measure due to this ‘‘word of the Lord.’’ Silvanus, who appears as 
joint author with Paul, had lately come from Jerusalem, having 
joined Paul in Antioch. In Acts 15:32 he is expressly declared to 
have had the gift of ‘‘prophecy.’’ Doubts have indeed been raised 
against the Pauline authorship of Second Thessalonians, principally 
on the ground of its eschatology, of which no further trace appears 
in Paul save the bare word ‘‘Beliar’’ in II Cor. 6: 15. But all recent 


84 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


critics have nevertheless pronounced in its favor, and the present 
writer sees no adequate ground for rejecting it. On the supposition 
of its genuineness its remarkable Antichrist doctrine joins on with 
the Little Apocalypse of the First Epistle to supplement in an 
extraordinary way the mental picture Paul had at this time formed 
of the Coming of the Lord. Even on the supposition of its unauthen- 
ticity we shall still be obliged to regard this Epistle as practically 
contemporary with Paul, since it continues to hold to the manifesta- 
tion of Beliar ‘‘in the temple of God.’’ Written while the temple 
was yet standing it would still, even if unpauline, represent the 
eschatology of some rival but practically contemporary “‘prophet,’’ 
who sought to improve upon that of Paul and Silvanus in First 
Thessalonians. : 

Pauline or pseudo-Pauline, Second Thessalonians is an invaluable 
witness to the kind of doctrine which was accepted in Pauline 
churches as teaching derived from ‘‘the Lord’’ in the period shortly 
after the crisis of 39-40, and shortly before that of 66-70. For how 
much of it Silvanus should be held responsible we cannot say, since 
Paul assumes joint responsibility. The only evidence on this point 
is the failure of the later Pauline epistles to reproduce anything of 
just the same kind. 

Second Thessalonians in its opening chapter returns to the 
‘‘descent of the Lord from heaven’’ described in the ‘‘word of the 
Lord’’ in I Thess. 4: 16. The divine ‘‘recompense’’ is to come 


at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his 
power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and 
to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus, . . . when he shall 
come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that 
believed. 


It is not easy to recognize in this all too vindictive eschatology the 
type of mind which has given us the love lyric of I Cor. 13, or the 
picture of the mind of Christ in Phil. 2: 5-11. Making all due allow- 
ance for the Apostle’s present provocation from Gentiles who 
‘‘know not God’’ and Jews who ‘‘obey not the gospel of our Lord 
Jesus,’’ it cannot well be imagined that Paul now made up an 
eschatology to suit his mood. The traits which here remind us so 
forcibly of Enoch and other pre-christian apocalypses are not of 
Paul’s invention. Still less can they be attributed to any historical 
teaching of Jesus. We can be sure, however, that they had obtained 
currency in the Church, and were looked upon as having the sane- 
tion of Jesus. They had already circulated among Christians for 
some little time previous to Paul’s writing (cf. Acts 17:3 with I 


EARLY CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY: 85 


Thess. 1:10). To the degree wherein such a term may be applied 
to unwritten teaching they were ‘‘stereotyped.”’ 

But what shall we say as to the origin of the section which con- 
tinues this Thessalonian eschatology, a section introduced for the 
special purpose of quieting the ‘‘agitation’’ of those too greatly 
excited ‘touching the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our 
gathering together unto him’’? Be it from Paul or Pseudo-Paul, be 
it a genuine or an unauthentic supplement to the teaching assumed 
before to have the sanction of ‘‘the Lord,’’ II Thess. 2: 1-12 cer- 
tainly introduces a totally new and very extraordinary feature, the 
Antichrist doctrine. This is in substance the same as the feature of 
the Shiqqutz in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse ; and it is in- 
troduced for the same object as in Mark, even to the use of the same 
rare Greek expression ‘‘Be not agitated’’ (1) Opociafe). We could 
have no better description of the motive for Mk. 13: 3-37 than to 
say, aS Paul says in II Thess. 2: 1-4, 


Now we beseech you brethren, touching the Coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and our gathering together unto him, to the end that ye be not 
quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit [that 
is, in utterances of the “prophets” ], or by word [such as the “word of the 
Lord” quoted in I Thess. 4:15 ff.], or by epistle purporting to emanate 
from us, as that the Day of the Lord is just at hand. Let no man beguile 
you in any way; for it will not be except the falling away come first and 
the Man of Sin be revealed, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against 
all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple 
of God, setting himself forth as God. 


What is the source of this Antichrist eschatology, which the author 
(Paul, or contemporary Pseudo-Paul) declares was taught by Paul 
to the Thessalonians while he was ‘‘yet with you?’’ Was it an utter- 
ance of the “‘spirit’’? Or was it a ‘‘word of the Lord’’ reported as 
granted to some ‘‘prophet’’ by revelation in some other church? 
If told by Paul to the Thessalonians while he was yet among them, 
clearly it belongs in the latter class. It was not his personal revela- 
tion. What Paul seems to be adding, whether of his own or some 
other interpreter, is an explanation of why the prediction could 
not have immediate fulfilment : 


And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he [the Anti- 
christ | may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness 
doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken 
out of the way. And then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord 
Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the 
manifestation of his Coming; even he whose Coming is according to the 
working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with 


86 . THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are perishing; because they 
received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this 
cause God sendeth them [the unbelieving Jews] a working of error that 
they should believe a lie [cf. Rom. 11:7f.; Jn. 5:42f.], that all those 
might be condemned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in 
unrighteousness. 


Just how Paul accounted for the postponement of the Manifesta- 
tion of the Lawless One, and who or what was the person or thing 
that would ‘‘restrain’’ until ‘‘he’’ be taken out of the way, we may 
leave for others to conjecture. For some reason the Manifestation 
had not taken place at the expected time. Nor is it difficult to de- 
termine with reasonable certainty what the postponement had been. 

The expected profanation of the temple had not occurred. This 
‘‘revelation’’ taught by Paul (or at least declared to have been 
taught by Paul) at his first coming to Thessalonica in company 
with the prophet Silvanus, not later than 49 a.p. (cf. I Thess. 1:10), 
is certainly not based on any historical teaching of Jesus. So far 
as it claims his authority it can only be a ‘‘word of the Lord’’ de- 
livered through some ‘‘prophet’’ of the early Church; for the situa- 
tion in view is obviously the crisis of the year 40. Moreover the 
language employed with reference to it is not the language of Jesus, 
nor is it in the spirit of Jesus. The language is that of ‘‘ Daniel the 
Prophet.’’ The spirit is that of the two ‘‘Sons of Thunder’’ rebuked 
in Lk. 9: 51-56 (8 text).® Whether it be the same Little Apocalypse 
placed by Mark in the mouth of Jesus as he sits with the four first 
disciples on the Mount of Olives ‘‘over against the temple,’’ or 
only a slightly divergent version of the same accepted teaching, the 
prophecy itself is nothing more nor less than an application of 
Dan. 11: 24-27 to the situation in Palestine in 39-40 a.p. It was in- 
evitable that a Jewish Christian such as Matthew should recognize 
its essential basis in Scripture. It was altogether to be expected that 
he would conform it more closely to the original, as he habitually 
does with the other Scripture quotations of Mark. What we have 
still fo enquire is how the prophecy comes to vary in certain notable 
particulars from ‘‘Daniel the Prophet.’’ Already in the Pauline 
form we observe the phenomenon, characteristic of the apocalypses 
and commonly known among critics as ‘‘setting the clock back.’’ 
The postponement of the Manifestation of the Lawless One in II 


5 The later ascription of this type of Christian ‘‘ prophecy’’ to ‘‘ John’? (Rev. 
1:9 ff.) suggests the query whether Agrippa’s selection of James as his first 
victim in preference to Peter, whom he only sought to apprehend later, may 
not have been due to activity of this denunciatory character by James and 
John during the crisis of 39-40. 


EARLY CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY 87 


Thess. 2:6 ff. is one of the instances where the writer has been 
‘‘taught by the event.’’ The doctrine of the Restrainer is a water- 
mark of Claudian times. We have still to enquire whether further 
teachings ‘‘from the event’’ are to be found in Mark’s Eschatologi- 
cal Discourse. 


CHAPTER VIII 
THE LITTLE APOCALYPSE OF THESSALONIANS 


Recent study of the two Epistles to the Thessalonians makes it 
certain that these letters, written early in the year 50, presuppose 
and are partly based upon a Prophecy of the End which might 
appropriately be called the Pauline Little Apocalypse. Its distine- 
tive feature is the doctrine of an Antichrist. 

Like Mark Paul combines ‘‘a word of the Lord’’ with an in- 
terpretation of Daniel. If it be true that the Markan Apocalypse 
cannot be as a whole an authentic utterance of Jesus in its present 
form, but contains an apocalyptic element bearing marks of an 
origin in the crisis of the year 40, this is even more evident of the 
Pauline. A part of the eschatological teaching of First Thessaloni- 
ans is explicitly referred to as “‘a word of the Lord’’; but the ex- 
pression probably stands for some utterance of church ‘‘prophets,’’ 
given out like our own Revelation of John as ‘‘a revelation of Jesus 
Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the 
things which must shortly come to pass.’’ Of the prophecy of 40 
A.D. aS well as John’s the Church doubtless maintained that the 
Lord had ‘‘sent and signified it by his angel [of prophecy] unto 
his servant,’’ whoever the prophet in question may have been; were 
it one of the sons of Zebedee, or John whose surname was Mark, or 
Silvanus (for both of these were subsequently companions of Paul) ; 
or were it some other of the Palestinian guild. The Thessalonian 
Epistles certainly imply the currency in the Church of eschatologi- 
cal teaching of the type known as ‘‘prophecy’’ or “‘apocalypse.’’ 
We have now to enquire how much can be eredibly established 
concerning the origin, transmission, and adaptation of this Pauline 
Little Apocalypse. 

It is noteworthy that Paul does not connect this eschatology with 
the destruction of Jerusalem. On the contrary, much as he is in- 
censed against his unbelieving fellow-countrymen, who themselves 
‘obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus’’ and at the same time ‘‘for- 
bid us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,’’ convinced 
as he is that by killing the prophets and the Lord Jesus, and driving 
out the preachers of the gospel the Jews have ‘‘filled up the measure 
of their sins,’’ so that ‘‘the wrath (I Thess. 1:10) has at last come 
upon them’’ (I Thess. 2:16), there is no suggestion of the siege or 


PAULINE APOCALYPSE 89 


overthrow of the city. In II Thess. 2:4 it is even explicitly pre- 
dicted that the Son of Perdition will ‘‘sit in the temple of God set- 
ting himself forth as God,’’ convincing evidence of the origin of 
both epistles before 70 a.p. Paul shows no knowledge that Jesus had 
prophesied the overthrow of the temple. 

However, it is tolerably certain that if the profanation prophecy 
originated in the crisis of the year 40 it has already in its Pauline 
form undergone some modification because of the reversal of ex- 
pectations in the intervening years. In’I Thess. 2:4 the profana- 
tion is still to take place. Antichrist is to appear in the temple as a 
culmination of ‘‘the mystery of lawlessness’’ already at work. Event 
and locality are still unchanged. But postponement has occurred 
through ‘‘the Restrainer,’’ whoever, or whatever, that may be, and 
whether Paul himself or some other ‘‘prophet’’ be responsible for 
it. The Thessalonians have been too much carried away with the 
principal drift of the prophecy, the promise of the Coming of Jesus 
from heaven to deliver his people from the coming Wrath (I Thess. 
1:10). They have failed to recall an addendum, or qualifying 
clause, which the Apostle himself had attached, and of which Paul 
(or Pseudo-Paul) now reminds them. The Manifestation of Jesus 
from Heaven as Deliverer from the Wrath, accompanied by the 
archangel’s voice and the trump of God (I Thess. 4: 15-17) must 
be preceded by an Apostasy elicited by Satan through an Anti- 
christ mamfested ‘‘in the temple of God’’ (II Thess. 2:3). This 
counter-demonstration of Satan leading to the Apostasy, is itself 
held in check for the time being by a Restrainer. 

According to Hitzig the Restrainer (6 xaréywv) is Claudius (from 
claudere, ‘‘to shut off,’’ or ‘‘restrain’’). Coming to the empire un- 
expectedly through the assassination of Caius, Claudius put a sud- 
den stop to the attempt at desecration of the temple, and introduced 
instead a policy of extraordinary favor to the Jews on account of 
his indebtedness to Agrippa I. This policy of favor to Judaism 
might naturally be spoken of in 50 a.p. as ‘‘that which restraineth”’ 
(76 xaréxov): for both masculine and neuter pronouns are employed. 
As soon as he (or ‘‘it’’) should be “‘taken out of the way’’ the 
policy of Caius, instigated by the Antisemitism of the time, whose 
favorite pretext was the new form of Seleucid king-worship (re- 
ligious devotion to the genius of Caesar) might be expected to pro- 
ceed to its inevitable end. Some emperor less favorably disposed 
than Claudius, or (like Nero) more open to the flattery of king- 
worship, would be sure to yield; for oriental syecophancy was ever 
on the watch to gain its ends by pushing forward this agency of 
Hellenistic statecraft. There might perhaps be no renewal of the 


90 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


attempt to set up the emperor’s bust in the temple. But the forces 
of “‘lawlessness’’ (paganism) were aggressive and alert. Some 
affront to Jewish religion would sooner or later be offered, and the 
inevitable result would be (as Petronius foresaw when he refused 
to carry out the orders of Caius) insurrection and war a outrance. 
Even if the weak barrier of Caius’ exemption of Jerusalem should 
suffice, the issue must come. Rome or Jerusalem, emperor-worship 
or monotheism in the form of Jehovah-worship; one or other must 
triumph without the possibility of compromise. In 41-50 this irre- 
pressible conflict must have seemed a fairly safe prediction. It gave 
at least new and larger meaning to Daniel’s vision of the conflict 
with Antiochus. There had been momentary deliverance from the 
precise form of catastrophe apprehended. The profanation might — 
not be by the setting up of a literal altar or statue, but the pith 
would again be profaned. 

The precise sense of the ‘‘Restrainer’’ of II Thess. 2:7 is im- 
possible to determine. Hitzig may, or may not, be right in his in- 
genious conjecture. In any event ‘‘he’’ (or ‘‘that’’) which restrains 
represents an interlude in the Danielic drama. We cannot be far 
from the meaning if we take this supplementary prediction as a 
postponement of the original prophecy made necessary by the un- 
expectedly favorable issue when Claudius came to the throne. The 
delay takes place expressly in order that Antichrist’ may appear 
‘“in his own season’’ (cf. Dan. 9: 24-27). Whether partially or 
wholly Pauline this scheme of the new ‘‘conflict of religions in the 
Empire’’ based upon Daniel represents authoritative Christian 
eschatology as it was in A.D. 50-66. But to what extent was it stereo- 
typed? 

Moderns do not always realize how much was involved for primi- 
tive apologetic by the bold and emphatic claim of the Church to be 
supernaturally endowed with the spirit of ‘‘prophecy.’’ For Syna- 
gogue and Church alike the one test was that of Dt. 13:1f., con- 
firmation, or failure of confirmation, of prediction by the event. 
Polemic had the practical effect of conservation. Adherents of the 
Church were not slow to make their boast in the Lord when 
‘‘prophecy’’ was fulfilled, being careful to report the prediction in 
such form as to bring out the correspondence as closely as possible. 
We have seen an example of this in the case of Mark’s prediction 
of the martyrdom of James and John. The care taken by the evangel- 
ist to mention both martyrs makes it highly probable (from the 
standpoint of apologetic) that he is writing after John also had 
“drunk the cup of the Lord.’’ Another example of verified 
prophecy in which the form of the report shows apparent adapta- 


PAULINE APOCALYPSE 91 


tion to the event is the prediction placed in the mouth of Jesus in 
Mk. 13:9, ‘‘Ye shall stand before governors and kings on my ac- 
count for a witness unto them’’ followed by the prediction of the 
proclamation of the gospel ‘‘to all the Gentiles.’’ Like the reference 
to the Baptist’s denunciation of Antipas it suggests, but does not 
prove, that the evangelist has in mind Paul’s testimony before 
Felix and Agrippa, and his subsequent ministry and martyrdom at 
Rome. Success was a great stimulus to the Church’s memory of 
‘‘prophecy.’’ Failure was even more important as a corrective. In 
the case of apparent non-fulfillment an argus-eyed opposition made 
sure that predictions not fully borne out by the event were not 
disavowed by the Church, or conveniently altered or forgotten. 

It belongs to the very nature of ‘‘prophecy’’ that it cannot be 
retracted. A certain amount of modification is permissible, espe- 
cially as regards times and seasons. When, as in eschatology, the 
burden of the exhortation is ‘‘ Watch, for ye know not the day nor 
the hour,’’ it follows of necessity that there must be uncertainty as 
to the precise time of the Coming. This uncertainty allows accord- 
ingly for postponement. A well-known example of this (not uncon- 
nected with the apocalypse with which we are now engaged) is the 
prophecy of the seven ‘‘kings’’ in Rev. 17: 9-11, to which the seer 
‘“‘taught by the event’’ has been compelled to add ‘‘the beast that 
was and is not’’ as ‘‘an eighth who is of the seven.’’ But in the case 
of all later adjustments of prophecy, opponents see to it that the 
original form is changed as little as possible. Once, therefore, a 
‘“prophecy’’ has been promulgated, approved by the Church 
through that process of testing which Paul recommends to the 
Thessalonians (I Thess. 5: 19-21) and accepted as a true “‘word of 
the Lord,’’ it cannot be materially altered. Slight adjustments may 
be made. There may be postponement, as suggested. But the prin- 
ciple must be held to. Especially if the ‘‘prophecy’’ be based on 
some Scripture such as Dan. 9: 24-27; 11: 30-37, the original form 
remains to bless or to curse. The Church which has assumed re- 
sponsibility for an alleged ‘‘word of the Lord’’ may wish it had 
been less definite and specific in a given case. But the Synagogue, 
eager to disprove the Church’s claim of prophetic foresight, will 
insist on the ipsissima verba. Change in a ‘‘prophecy’’ once given 
out as a ‘‘word of the Lord’’ was a more difficult process than mod- 
erns imagine. For that reason the prophecy is the more reliable in 
its basis, and traces of later adaptation to the event, if such exist, 
are less difficult to detect. There are limits of possible alteration. 

We have seen that the crisis of the year 40 drew out from Chris- 
tian ‘‘prophets’’ a form of eschatology based on the predictions of 


92 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Daniel concerning the desecration of the temple, and that the 
Church became committed to this eschatology as a ‘‘word of the 
Lord.’’ Whether the Little Apocalypse of Paul in Thessalonians, 
and the Shiqqutz prophecy of Mark are actually derived from the 
same prophetic utterance in the Jerusalem church in 39-40 A.D., or 
only from kindred utterances of the same period, is not vital to the 
question. Doubtless there were many prophets in the Jerusalem 
church who undertook applications of Daniel’s prophecy to the 
situation of 39-40. But no other circumstances than those of 40 A.D. 
will account for the elements which they have in common, more 
especially the profanation doctrine. For Paul expects a “‘mystery 
of lawlessness’’ parodying the ‘‘mystery of the kingdom’’ and 
finding its ‘‘manifestation’’ in a renewal of the sacrilege of Antio- 
chus. This is a new development. Pre-Christian apocalypse had in- 
deed a ‘*Beliar’’ (or ‘‘Belial’’) figure as a personification of Satanic 
power. But personification falls short of incarnation, nor can there 
be a parody of redemption in the Christian sense until the Christian 
sense has itself found expression. Of the Antichrist doctrine (not 
that of Beliar only) Second Thessalonians gives the earliest known 
trace. It does not, however, stand entirely alone; for the Antichrist 
prophecy of Rey. 18 is also based, according to a number of critics, 
on a Jewish or Jewish-Christian apocalypse of this same period. 
Of the theories of Erbes, Spitta, Wellhausen, and J. Weiss regard- 
ing the ‘‘Caligula-apocalypse’’ underlying Rev. 13 Archdeacon 
Charles has given so full an account (Intern. Crit. Comm. p. 338 
ff.) in addition to his own, that we need but cite his conclusion (p. 
350) : 

However just these contentions (of Spitta and Erbes) may be, the text 
as it stands cannot refer to Caligula. To make it do so requires the change 
of the number 666 to 616 (Idios xatcap=—616, an ancient reading)... . 
The text as it stands refers . . . to Nero redivivus. However, our author 
is probably using here an earlier source referring possibly to Caligula. 


Mutually independent or not, and however related or unrelated 
to the Johannine, the Pauline and the Synoptic ‘‘prophecies’’ must 
both go back to the attempt of Caius. Neither can be accounted for 
as a ‘‘word of the Lord’’ in any other sense than as the Revelation 
of John may be so called. It is the critic’s business to determine 
what changes, if any, appear to have been brought about in this 
early form of Christian eschatology by the subsequent course of 
events. We must examine first the Pauline form, to see if any modifi- 
cation besides the inevitable postponement appears to have been 
dictated by known occurrences. 


PAULINE APOCALYPSE 93 


We may take from Schurer the account of events after Agrippa’s 
intercession with Caius to avert the catastrophe in the closing 
months of 40 a.p. 


Contrary to all expectation, the letter of Agrippa had the desired effect. 
Caligula caused a letter to be written to Petronius (proconsul in Antioch, 
who meantime had himself endeavored to defer the mad designs of the 
emperor), commanding that nothing should be changed in the temple at 
Jerusalem. The favour was certainly not unmixed; for along with this 
order there was an injunction that no one who should erect a temple or 
altar to the emperor outside of Jerusalem should be hindered from doing 
so. A good part of the concession that had been made was thus again with- 
drawn; and it was only owing to the circumstance that no one took ad- 
vantage of the right thus granted, that new disturbances did not arise out 
of it. The emperor himself soon repented that he had made even this con- 
cession. He made indeed no further use of the statue that had been pre- 
pared at Sidon, but ordered a new one to be made in Rome which he in- 
tended himself, in his journey to Alexandria which he had in prospect, to 
put ashore on the coast of Palestine as he passed, and have it secretly 
brought to Jerusalem. Only the death of the emperor that soon followed 
(January 24, 41) prevented the carrying out of this enterprise. 


We can account for the eschatology of the Thessalonian Epistles 
only as we take note of the fact that in them while Jerusalem is 
(for the time being) exempted, the rest of Judaea is exposed to 
continual encroachment from this new form of Seleucid religious 
tyranny. R. H. Charles in his excursus on ‘‘The Antichrist, Beliar, 
and the Neronic Myths, and their ultimate Fusion in early Chris- 
tian Literature’”* and Frame? are agreed that fusion of the Danielic 
Desecrator myth with that of Beliar, to produce the figure of ‘‘the 
man of lawlessness’’ who occupies the seat of divinity in the temple 
of God, took place in Christian circles ‘‘before 50 .p.’’ This conelu- 
sion is, of course, based by Frame upon the date “‘early in 50’’ for 
the Thessalonian Epistles. Charles is quite explicit in stating his 
conviction : 


This expectation [of “the man of Lawlessness” |] may have been influ- 
enced by the action of the emperor Caligula (37-41 a.p.) when he ordered 
the governor Petronius to erect his statue in the Temple. If he had per- 
sisted in this act of profanation the Jews would undoubtedly have regarded 
it as a fulfilment of the prediction of the setting up of “the abomination 
of desolation” in the Temple. This phrase was, as we are aware, first applied 
to the heathen altar set up by Antiochus in the Temple (I Mace. 1: 54), and 
probably also to the image of Olympian Zeus beside it (cf. Taanith iv. 6.). 


1 Intern, Crit. Comm. on Revelation, 1920, Vol. II, p. 77. 
2 Intern. Crit. Comm. on Thessalonians, p. 254 f. 


94 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Charles not only suggests here how the prediction of the shiqqutz 
shomem in the Temple as a sign of the End came to be regarded as 
‘‘a word of the Lord’’ and connected with authentic warnings of 
Jesus regarding the fate of an unrepentant Jerusalem (Lk. 13: 
1-9), but he definitely fixes the date (37-41) when the ‘‘prophecy’’ 
originated. In fact he proceeds to quote the suggestion of Bousset 
that ‘‘the ever recurring expectation of later times, that Antichrist 
would take his place in the temple of Jerusalem dates from this 
period.’’ In general terms we may accept this result. Antichrist was 
born under Caligula in 40 a.p. The earliest appearance of the doc- 
trine is in our present Pauline Little Apocalypse. But we must 
look more closely at this ‘‘ever recurring expectation’’ and its effect 
on the Pauline form of the apocalypse in 50 ap. 

Through the Book of Acts and the Gallio inscription discovered — 
at Delphi in 1905 it is fortunately possible to date the Thessalonian 
Epistles accurately in the early months of the year 50; but even 
were we shut up to inferences from the form of the eschatology the 
approximate dating would not be doubtful. It would be just as 
possible to argue for a date later than 40 from the doctrine of the 
Restrainer, as to argue from the expectation of the appearance of 
‘Antichrist in the temple for a date earlier than 70. The Restrainer’s 
function is to hold back the Antichrist, so that he may not be mani- 
fested before his “‘proper time,’’ for his ‘“‘proper time’’ is closely 
though eryptically caleulated in Dan. 9: 24-27. The characteriza- 
tion of Antichrist is given in II Thess. 2:4, and (as Frame points 
out) ‘‘The words of the first clause are evidently reminiscent of 
a description already applied to Antiochus Epiphanes by Daniel 
(Theod. 11: 36 ff.).’’ The Restrainer doctrine is therefore a mere 
supplement to an earlier prophecy whose essential feature was the 
repetition of the temple profanation of Antiochus. The Christian 
seer expects the prophecy of Daniel to be now fulfilled, though the 
‘“proper time’’ has not yet arrived. He looks for ‘‘the apostasy”’ 
(ver. 3) of Dan. 11:30 (Antiochus welcomes ‘‘those that forsake 
the holy covenant’’). He describes the wicked king in the very 
terms of Dan. 11:36 (‘‘he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself 
above every god, and shall speak swelling words against the God of 
Gods . . . Neither shall he regard any god; for he shall magnify 
himself above all’’). It is highly significant, however, that Paul 
omits the intervening prophecy of Dan. 11:31, 

And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, 
even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they 
shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate. 


Instead of this unmistakable reference to the Shiqqutz as we have 


PAULINE APOCALYPSE 95 


it in the Markan and Matthean apocalypse, Paul has only the 
vaguer prediction that 


the Man of Lawlessness will be revealed, the Son of Perdition, he that 
opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is wor- 
shipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as 
God. [This, however, will not be until after the removal of the present 
Restrainer.] Then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord Jesus 
shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the mani- 
festation of his Coming’; even he whose Coming is according to the working 
of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of 
unrighteousness for them that are perishing; because they received not the 
love of the truth, that they might be saved. 


Frame finds ‘‘difficulty with the reference to the temple in Jeru- 
salem’’ as the place of Antichrist’s manifestation, in the fact that 
the evidence for this interpretation is ‘‘not convincing’’: 


Neither Antiochus who erected a heathen altar on the altar of burnt- 
offering, and presumably placed thereon (?)° a statue of Zeus Olympios 
(cf. I Mace. 1:54: Dan. 9:27; 11:31; Mk. 13:14; Mt. 24:15), nor 
Caligula who ordered Petronius to set up his statue in the temple (Jos. 
Ant. 18: 8) is conceived as sitting or attempting to sit in the sanctuary of 
God. Contrast our verse with Asc. Is. 4:11: “He (Beliar) . . . will set 
up his image in every city.” 

The exception taken by Frame to the attempt to identify the Paul- 
ine self-manifestation of Antichrist with the Synoptic Shiqqutz- 
prophecy is justified. There is a real and significant difference. To 
Paul the profaning object is a living man. On the other hand Paul 
could not mean, or be taken to mean, anything else by ‘‘the temple 
of God,’’ than ‘‘the temple in Jerusalem.’’ There is no ambiguity 
whatever as to place. The real ambiguity comes from the substitu- 
tion of a person for a thing. Paul has left out the material Shiqqutz, 
which his use of Dan. 11:30-37 implies as part of the original 
prophecy, and has substituted the conception which Frame justly 
regards as novel, the Man of Lawlessness “‘sitting, or attempting 
to sit, in the sanctuary of God.’’* Whence and why this change, if 
not because the failure of the expected profanation by setting up 
the statue of Caligula in 40-41 had compelled a more spiritual in- 
terpretation of the prediction of Daniel? The place remains, as be- 


8 Theodotion’s translation of Dan. 9: 27 (éml 7d lepdy= we ‘al kanaph) suggests 
that the statue was set on the ‘‘pinnacle’’ of the temple. 

4 Of this affront to ‘‘all that is called a god, or that is worshipped,’’ Caligula 
had been guilty by personally taking his place among the statues of the gods 
in the Pantheon at Rome and welcoming popular worship. It was quite conceiv- 
able that some other imperial megalomaniac might repeat Caligula’s perform- 
ance ‘‘in the temple of God’’ in Jerusalem. 


96 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


fore, ‘‘the temple of God’’; that is “‘the sanctuary, even the for- 
tress,’’ of Dan. 11:31. The agent remains, as before, the king who 
‘‘exalts himself and magnifies himself above everything divine’’ of 
Dan. 11:36. But the precise form of the profanation (shiqqutzim 
ha-shomim=“‘objects of worship that make desolate’’) has been 
changed. In place of the material object Paul substitutes a personal 
manifestation. 

We must remember that Paul is a Roman citizen, and moreover 
habitually shields himself against the fanatical hatred of his fellow- 
countrymen under Roman authority. For him the growing danger 
is the pagan incarnation-doctrine, which to his mind is a parody of 
the Christian, just as the Mithra ritual is to Justin a parody of the 
Christian sacrament. Seleucid king-worship was reasserting itself. 
Emperor-worship as an oriental superstition continually pushing 
itself forward in the East against the better judgment of the saner 
emperors themselves was already at odds with Jewish monotheism. 
Paul looks at the conflict from the religious point of view. For him, 
writing under Claudius, the political crisis is past. The insurrection 
of Theudas in 44-45 had just been suppressed by Cuspius Fadus. 
The great famine which followed under Fadus and his successor in 
the procuratorship, Tiberius Alexander (45-46), no doubt belongs 
also, together with the complete loss of Jewish independence, among 
the indications Paul sees of “‘the wrath’’ which the unbelieving, 
persecuting people have at last filled to overflowing against them- 
selves. But these are past. Why look for more political disaster? 
There is no indication that Paul foresees a greater rebellion to fol- 
low that of Theudas after twenty years, and that it will entail the 
destruction of Jerusalem. On the contrary he expects the temple to 
stand indefinitely. It is to become the scene of conflict between 
Christ and Belial. The great saying of Jesus on the abiding spiritual 
temple Paul rightly interprets (I Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2: 22) in the sense 
that God and Christ will abide in the spiritual Israel, ‘‘a habitation 
of God in the Spirit.’’ It will not be in “‘houses made with hands.”’ 
True he still looks for the profanation of the sanctuary foretold by 
Daniel. This to Paul is still the sign of the Coming, because the 
Deliverer must appear when the crisis has reached its culmination. 
A “‘mystery of lawlessness’’ (paganism) is already at work. The 
combination of Pharisees and Herodians against the Church (Acts 
12:1f.) is a foretaste of it. It already parallels the combination of 
the apostate Hellenizing Jews with Antiochus, a leaven of the 
Pharisees’ which may well be expected to mimic the work of Christ, 


5 See Bacon, ‘‘ Pharisees and Herodians in Mark,’’ Journal of Bibl. Lit., 
XXXIX (1920), p. 102 ff. 


PAULINE APOCALYPSE 97 


so that in a literal sense, and as foretold by the prophets, judgment 
should begin ‘‘at the house of God.’’ But Paul does not look for the 
destruction of the temple. For him the conflict is ‘‘in the heaven- 
hes,’’ reflected on earth only in the conflict of religious ideals. 
There is no intimation in the forecast of this theologian and citizen 
of Rome of political revolutions such as that which brought about 
the sack of Jerusalem and burning of the temple in 70 a.p., though 
such events are of course not excluded. 

Such, then, was the form which Christian apocalypse had taken 
on in 50 A.p. The basic idea was the Danielic prediction of a 
profanation of the temple. In the crisis of 40 this had drawn forth a 
Christian adaptation widely circulated as a ‘‘word of the Lord,’’ 
that is, a “‘revelation of the things that must shortly come to pass,’’ 
sent by the risen Christ and signified to his servant (John?). The 
substance of this ‘‘prophecy’’ could not be changed. Even when 
the crisis came and passed by without the expected “‘setting up of 
the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary’’ (Dan. 11:31) the 
profanation was still expected. Only the material form of it was no 
longer pressed. Paul’s interpretation of the Scripture is what we 
might expect from the Apostle who contends that our wrestling is 
not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and 
powers in the heavenly places, against the world-rulers of this dark- 
ness, the Prince of the power of the air. Not a material Shiqqutz 
will provoke the insurrection, but a ‘“‘manifestation of Beliar.’’ 

Paul realizes that advancing emperor-worship must soon come 
to an issue with Jewish and Christian monotheism. It was indeed 
an irrepressible conflict. On one side loyal Judaism and Christianity 
(as yet quite undistinguished in Gentile thought) would stand to- 
gether. On the other would stand pagan “‘lawlessness’’ (the ter- 
minology is Jewish-Christian rather than Pauline). And there 
seemed to be as yet no reason to question the prediction of Daniel 
that ‘‘the sanctuary’’ would be the scene of the supreme struggle. 
Josephus takes the prediction for granted. Under Claudius it was 
still definitely expected. It is quite possible that in Second Thes- 
salonians the hand is deutero-Pauline, though still of the period 
50-70. But it would be hard to mention any other than Paul to 
whom this solution of the problem by transposition of the conflict 
into the spirit world would be more natural. If the essential feature 
of the Danielic prediction (profanation of the temple) is retained, 
while the growing forces of pagan “‘lawlessness’’ are conceived as 
a ‘‘mystery’’ already at work, a counter-activity of ‘‘the god of 
this world’’ in a sort of diabolical imitation of the redemption in 
Christ Jesus, this is in line with the mind of Paul. But whether 


98 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the Antichrist doctrine be due to Paul, or Silvanus, or some con- 
temporary Christian prophet, in Paul’s environment we can hardly 
account for the disappearance of the feature of the Shiqqutz, and 
the substitution of the idea of a personal manifestation of ‘‘ Anti- 
christ’’ in the temple, unless it be by the desire to do full justice 
to the Danielic prediction of the profanation of the sanctuary, at 
a time when it could no longer be expected that it would take the 
material form anticipated in the crisis of the year 40. The inter- 
pretation adopted in Second Thessalonians is at least in harmony 
with Pauline ideas, a ‘‘mystery of lawlessness’’ culminating in an 
incarnation of Satanic ‘“‘power and signs and lying wonders, to- 
gether with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are perish- 
ing because they would not receive the truth.’’ The conflict of 
pagan atheism against Jewish and Christian monotheism remains. 
The profanation of the sanctuary as prelude to the Coming remains. 
Only the Shiqqutz has vanished. On the other hand the expectation 
of a Jewish war against Rome, a destruction of Jerusalem, and a 
burning and demolition of the temple has not yet appeared above 
the horizon. Paul has a ‘‘word of the Lord’’ to quote; but if he 
knew of any saying predicting the doom of Jerusalem and the 
temple, he makes no mention of it. 


NOTE 


A communication from Professor 8. J. Case of Chicago, received since this 
volume was paged, calls attention to a much needed correction of the state- 
ment of Schtirer above quoted (p. 93). The Palestinian synagogues did not 
owe their immunity from desecration during the reign of Claudius ‘‘to the 
circumstance that noone took advantage of the right granted (by Caligula) ’’ 
in places ‘‘outside Jerusalem.’’ On the contrary Josephus relates at length 
(Ant. XIX, vi. 3) how even under Agrippa I the Syrian rabble actually set up 
the statue of Claudius in the synagogue at Dor (a rival Jewish port seven miles 
north of Caesarea), thus renewing the pogrom of Alexandria, doubtless expect- 
ing the outrage to receive from Claudius the same favorable treatment shown 
by Caligula. Petronius, the proconsul at Antioch, who on the former occasion 
had risked his life to save the temple from sacrilege, intervened again at the 
request of Agrippa, this time with the emperor’s full support. The centurion 
Proculus Vitellius was sent to execute condign punishment on the perpetrators 
of the outrage, and Petronius issued a proclamation against further ‘‘lawless- 
ness’’ of the kind. Paul’s statement of conditions under Claudius is therefore 
by far the more correct. Jews and Christians alike owed their brief respite from 
the hatred of the Hellenizing mob to the vigorous hand of the Roman ‘‘Re- 
strainer.’’? When this was ‘‘taken away’’ only three years later than the date 
of Paul’s writing by the accession of Nero, the ‘‘mystery of lawlessness’’ was 
prompt to wreak its fell purpose ‘‘in the temple of God’’ itself, though not in 
the precise manner anticipated by the Apostle. 


CHAPTER IX 


THE MARKAN DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEAN 
ADAPTATION 


From the form which Christian eschatology assumes in the Thes- 
salonian Epistles we must turn again to the story of the later years 
of Paul, and the disastrous change in the policy of Nero, at first 
the docile pupil of Seneca and Burrhus, giving, for a ‘‘golden 
quinquennium,’’ almost ideal good government. Later we find Nero 
yielding more and more to the persistent sin of the autocrat, the 
megalomania of Caligula. Lustful self-indulgence first transformed 
the palace of the Caesars into a scene of continual orgies and mur- 
ders, next a morbid craving for popular applause sent Nero on his 
eastern tour in quest for histrionic laurels. The adulatory inscrip- 
tion in bronze letters lately deciphered, affixed to the tympanum of 
the Parthenon by order of the Council of Athens and the Are- 
opagus exalting ‘“‘Nero the Son of God’’ still testifies eloquently 
both to the servility of the East, and to the advances of Roman 
imperialism along the path marked out for it by oriental flattery. 
To the Johannine seer these are ‘‘names of blasphemy.’’ To every 
Christian Nero’s childish chase after flattery must have recalled 
the insane vanity of Caligula. The comparison of it by Christian 
prophets to the battle of Antiochus (self-styled ‘‘God Manifest’’) 
against Jehovah-worship was almost inevitable. It is not surprising 
that the more literal and concrete interpretation of the prophecy 
of Daniel should regain the upper hand as Nero approached more 
and more the antics of his insane predecessor. 

We dropped the thread of events relating to the struggle against 
profanation of the temple at the point where it was broken off by 
the assassination of January 24, a.p. 41. The temple was specifically 
exempted. But the Jew-baiters had received implicit leave to carry 
out their favorite mode of attack against any other Jewish holy 
place. The Ascension of Isaiah, with its prediction of Beliar ‘‘set- 
ting up his image in every city’’ (IV. 11), is one of several evi- 
dences that the imperial license to inciters of pogroms was not for- 
gotten. This anonymous prophet also has found a solution of the 
difficulty created by Daniel’s overprecise designation of ‘‘the”’ 
holy place. 

Hostility to the Jews, provoked by their religious claims and the 


100 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


special exemptions which their religious scruples had secured for 
them, did not diminish during the reign of Claudius. On the con- 
trary, everything tended to keep glowing the embers of apocalyptic 
expectation. The closing years of Claudius’ reign were marked by 
an anti-Semitic outbreak at Rome which led to the expulsion of 
Jews and Christians together from the metropolis shortly before 
the date of Paul’s writing.t When Nero came to the throne (October 
13, 54) the outlook was for a time brighter in the empire at large, 
but for those in Judea matters soon went from bad to worse. True, 
Felix, the corrupt and servile appointee of Claudius’ “‘kitchen 
cabinet,’’ was replaced by Festus, an appointee of Nero’s ‘‘golden 
quinquennium.’’ But Festus’ administration was short. Under his 
successors robbery and oppression of the Jews by their Samaritan 
and Gentile neighbors reached proportions which finally under 
Gessius Florus (64-66) became utterly unbearable. Emperor-wor- 
ship flourished apace. At last, at the very time while the imperial 
buffoon was receiving divine honors from fawning Greek assem- 
blies for his performances on the stage in Achaia, rebellion in Judea 
broke forth beyond control (November, 66). Once more “‘ prophecy’’ 
reverted to Daniel and the prediction of the Shiqqutz. Nero was 
not likely to show more restraint than Caligula; nor was this a time 
to expect the special exemption of the temple at Jerusalem from 
profanation. Above all, the explicit prediction of Daniel was ever 
present, waiting only the opportunity to reassert itself. The Jew- 
baiters might be expected to have their way whenever the Roman 
legions should finally enter the city. As we know by special report 
of primitive Christian tradition, the Church entertained no doubt 
whatever of Roman victory. Taught not only by remembered say- 
ings of Jesus, but specially instructed by ‘‘a revelation granted to 
approved men there (in Jerusalem) before (but perhaps not im- 
mediately before) the war’’? the Church took advantage of the 
slowness of Rome to renew the assault after the disaster which had 
befallen Cestius Gallus and the twelfth legion, and removed to ‘‘a 
certain town of Perea called Pella.’’ When the Church departed it 
must have seemed as if the Man of Sin were on the very point of 
taking his seat in the temple of God. As yet nothing else was to be 
expected but that the “‘mystery of iniquity,’’ after having been 
mercifully “‘restrained’’ during a period of twenty-five years of 
divine long-suffering with a disobedient people, would come to its 
long-expected culmination. Profanation, whether in Nero’s person 
or by object of worship, seemed inevitable. But even now it does 


1 Acts 18: 2, cf. Suetonius, Claudius 25, Dio Cassius LX, vi. 6. 
2 Eusebius H.H. ITI, v. 3, perhaps resting on Hegesippus. 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEW 101 


not appear that anyone, Jew or Christian, anticipated the actual 
overthrow of Herod’s massive building. 

But at the very end of the siege, against the explicit orders of 
Titus, an enraged Roman soldier flung a fire-brand into the magnifi- 
cent colonnades of the temple, destroying the splendid superstruc- 
ture, so that nothing remained for the conqueror in the end but to 
order its complete demolition. Thus of the ‘‘great stones’’ proudly 
exhibited by the disciples to Jesus there remained literally ‘‘not 
one stone upon another.”’ 

Up to this moment the expectation of the Jews must have been 
that at least ‘‘the temple of God and the altar’’ would be spared. 
The saying of Jesus contrasting the impermanence of the material 
with the spiritual temple must have been understood (correctly) 
in the sense Paul would seem to have given it (II Cor. 4:18). The 
‘‘house’’ might remain to its devotees, but ‘‘forsaken.’’ The ‘‘dwell- 
ing’’ of God would be with a new Israel. The prophecy ascribed 
to John (Rev. 11:1) holds that even if ‘‘the court without the 
temple and the holy city’’ were ‘‘given unto the Gentiles to tread 
under foot’’ the sanctuary itself will remain inviolate. This too is 
an erratic block. Christians who cherished as ‘‘a revelation’’ the 
prediction of Antichrist ‘‘manifested’’ in the temple must have 
felt more and more convinced, up to the very catastrophe itself, 
that in some sense ‘‘the abomination of desolation spoken of by 
Daniel the prophet’’ was about to ‘‘stand in the holy place.’’ They 
ean hardly have failed to point with pride to the prophecy long 
treated as unfulfilled. Ultimately, as the great stones yielded under 
the levers of the tenth legion, they will also have quoted the saying, 
‘*Not one stone shall rest upon another.’’ 

In this twenty-five years of reprieve from Caligula to Nero we 
have no reason to suppose that the primitive Christian eschatology 
represented in First and Second Thessalonians was changed in any 
essential respect, save that of postponement by the xaréywv, and this 
Paul himself proposes or else endorses. The manifestation of Anti- 
christ in the temple was still expected. In the later epistles we have 
(as often remarked) an increasing disposition on Paul’s part to 
rest upon the mystical side of his hope of immortality, his gradual 
‘“transfiguration’’ into the likeness of the glorified Christ and ulti- 
mate departure ‘‘to be with the Lord,’’ coupled with a neglect of 
his apocalyptic expectations of witnessing the destruction of Beliar 
and manifestation of the Christ ‘‘our life.’? This was only natural 
with the advancing years and infirmities of the veteran Apostle. 
But the ‘‘mystery’’ (apocalypse?) told in I Cor. 15: 51 f., involving 


102 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the same chief apocalyptic features as I Thess. 4:16, shows that 
they are still in the background of Paul’s thought. The course of 
events would certainly tend among Christians generally throughout 
this period of suspense to confirm rather than diminish their ex- 
pectation of the original apocalyptic program. Their eschatology 
in 50 a.p. must be judged by First and Second Thessalonians. But 
side by side with the Little Apocalypse stood the original Great 
Apocalypse of Daniel, of which it had been a mere adaptation in 
the first instance; and to this it could not fail to be repeatedly re- 
conformed as successive generations were ‘‘taught by the event.’’ 
The Pauline eschatology is one example of this reconformation to 
Danielic type. We shall see that Paul’s example bore fruit. 

Primitive Christian eschatology was determined, as we have seen, 
first, by the quite general warnings of Jesus, second, by apocalyptic 
utterances of the ‘‘prophets’’ in the period of crisis about 40 a.D., 
accepted as ‘‘a word of the Lord,’’ third, by ‘‘Scripture,’’ wherein 
Daniel was of principal effect. As we now approach the terminology 
of the Synoptic writers it will be seen at once that what we have 
before. us in Mark and Luke is a parallel to the Pauline form. So 
far- from having the original prophecy, we have quite visibly in 
Mark, and even more unmistakably in Luke, an adaptation of the 
primitive tradition to meet the inconvenient fact that by a second 
unexpected development (i.e., the burning and subsequent demolli- 
tion of the temple) it had become forever impossible to experience 
a literal fulfilment of the expected culmination of the ‘‘mystery of 
iniquity.’’ The ‘‘man of lawlessness’’ would never take his seat ‘‘in 
the temple of God’’ claiming honors due solely to God. It was no 
longer possible to retain the apocalypse in this form because ‘‘the 
temple of God’’ had been quite unexpectedly but completely de- 
stroyed. There was not even a prospect of its being rebuilt within 
the period over which Christian hopes of the Coming extended. 
Prophecy had been wrong on the minor point of locality. Otherwise 
all was confirmed. Such appears to be the prospect in view of which 
both the second and third of our evangelists recast the current 
eschatology, making (as always) the minimum of change. Both 
Mark and Luke appear to have been ‘‘taught by the event,’’ Luke 
certainly far more obviously than Mark, whether because he has 
the record of Josephus, or only because he is a better historian. 
These changes we shall discuss later, confining ourselves for the 
present to Matthew. 

As we have already noted (above, p. 64) the Doom-chapter in 
Matthew assumes a form nearest of all to the Danielic model, and 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEW 103 


even an “‘immediately’’ (ver. 29) is introduced to give additional 
assurance that the expected Coming of the Son of Man will not be 
long delayed after ‘‘the tribulation of those days.’’ Nevertheless 
Matthew’s special adaptation of the parable of the Slighted Invita- 
tion (Mt. 22: 1-10=Lk. 14: 15-24; cf. especially verses 6-7 and 10- 
14) makes it practically certain that this Gospel dates from a period 
subsequent to 70. How is this phenomenon to be explained? 

In view of certain salient characteristics of Matthew, especially 
as regards ‘‘fulfilments’’ of Scripture, or what to this evangelist 
has the authority of Scripture, we cannot infer from its closer ap- 
proximation to Daniel an earlier date than Mark. Where the special 
interests of Matthew are concerned this evangelist always takes 
pains to bring the Scripture quotations of Mark into closer con- 
formity to the Old Testament text, as in 19:18 f. (cf. Mk. 10:19), 
21:2-7 (cf. Mk. 11: 2-7), 27:34, 48 (cf. Mk. 15:36), 35 (cf. Mk. 
15: 24), 57-60 (cf. Mk. 15: 42 f.). We should especially expect it in 
the case of a prophecy so vital as this to Christian hopes. More 
significant still is Matthew’s general disposition to accentuate warn- 
ings of the impending judgment (7: 21-23; 13: 40-43, 47-50; 22: 
11-13; 25: 31-46), and to make more definite and positive the pre- 
dictions of the Parousia. Thus at the sending of the Twelve the 
Coming of the Son of Man is definitely promised before they shall 
have “‘gone over the cities of Israel’’ (Mt. 10:23). For the vaguer 
assurance of Mk. 9:1 that some of them that stand by shall in no 
wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God ‘‘come with 
power’’ Matthew substitutes ‘‘till they see the Son of Man coming 
in his kingdom.’’ This tendency is particularly marked in the Doom- 
chapter. Here, instead of Mark’s form of the question “Tell us 
when shall these things be (that is, the demolition of the temple; 
cf. ver. 2), and what shall be the sign when all these things are 
about to be accomplished,’’ Matthew substitutes ‘‘What shall be 
the sign of thy Coming and of the consummation of the world?’’ 
He also makes the claim of the pretenders more definite by adding 
to Mark’s ‘‘I am’’ the words ‘‘the Christ.’’ The effect in general is 
to change the tone of the discourse from repression of overwrought 
eschatological expectation to distinct encouragement of it. The re- 
pressive tone is characteristic of Mark, who repeats the exhortation 
of Paul to the Thessalonians, even adopting its distinctive term 
By Opociabe (II Thess. 2:2; cf. Mk. 18:7). Matthew would repress 
premature enthusiasm, with ultimate encouragement. The addition 
of an ‘‘immediately’’ (edéws) in Mt. 24:29, where Mark only pre- 
dicts the signs of the End in heaven ‘‘in those days, after that 


104 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


PB 


tribulation’’ is commonly observed. But this does not stand alone. 
Verse 30 adds the definite assurance ‘‘and then shall appear the 
sign of the Son of Man in heaven.’’ The promise of his coming 
‘‘with clouds’’ is conformed to the letter of Dan. 7: 13 LX X ‘‘on the 
clouds of heaven.’’ Two new traits are added in verses 30 and 31, 
the ‘‘mourning of all the tribes of the land’’ (or “‘earth’’ LXX 
9 yn) from Zech. 12: 10-14, and the “‘great trumpet’’ of Is. 27:18. 
The latter is a stereotyped feature of current apocalypse, as we see 
from I Thess. 4:16; I Cor. 15:52. These additions, and the change 
of the warning of Mk. 13:10 that the Coming will not be until after 
the Gentiles have heard the message to the positive form ‘‘then 
shall the End come’’ (Mt. 24:14), are all encouragements to an 
apocalyptic hope which in due season is to be justified. 7 

With such manifold evidences of a disposition to conform to Old 
Testament apocalypse, and simultaneously to make the predictions 
of Mark both clearer and more reassuring, we cannot mistake the 
general attitude of Matthew toward the work he is using. All that 
his predecessor had said Matthew endorses as true, adding a few 
kindred logia, and some elaborations of his own. But he detaches 
the discourse as a whole from its connection with the demolition of 
the temple, and makes it more exclusively a prediction of the end 
of the world (cvw7éAca rod aiévos). He also emphasizes the fact that 
the time of further waiting will be short. The Coming will be “‘im- 
mediately after those days’’ of tribulation. Matthew seems thus to 
be seeking to restore an eschatological enthusiasm which it had 
been the effort of Paul and Mark to hold in check. He aims to con- 
form the Little Apocalypse of Mark to the Great Apocalypse of 
Daniel for the very purpose of showing how ‘‘the Scripture was 
fulfilled’’ in what has already transpired, and is sure to be in what 
is still to come to pass. The Matthean adaptation of the Little 
Apocalypse leads over to the apocalyptic chapter of the Teaching 
of the Twelve, and is continued in the interpretations of Jerome 
and Chrysostom. It marks the beginning of that type which on the 
one side reassimilates to Daniel, while on the other it endeavors to 
find correspondences with known events. 

Our first inference from this survey is fatal to the common sup- 
position that the Markan Little Apocalypse was composed in the 
first years of the outbreak (66-67), that it came to the attention of 
Matthew, and was immediately recast before this evangelist could 
know through the course of events that the Danielic expectation of 
the profanation of the temple could never be literally fulfilled. The 
relation of our first Gospel to our second is anything but that of a 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEW 105 


hasty revision under pressure of such circumstances as those of 
Judea in 66-70. Matthew is a work of the utmost care and attention. 
It combines Mark and the Second Source with elaborate skill, weav- 
ing in certain minor factors to make a literary product such as only 
years of thought and labor could achieve. Both it and Luke must 
stand at no little remove from their common narrative source, if 
only to allow time for Mark to achieve its unrivalled preéminence 
in their estimation. But there are many features of Matthew, in- 
cluding some already noted, such as the addition to the parable of 
the Slighted Invitation (Mt. 22:7), which make so early a date as 
66-70 incredible. Among these, in spite of attempts to interpret the 
phenomena in an opposite sense, must be reckoned the Matthean 
Doom-chapter. We find indeed greater definiteness of its predictions 
as compared with Mark; and this very definiteness undoubtedly 
shows that Matthew takes the setting up of ‘‘the abomination of 
desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet’’ in the true and real 
sense of the pre-Christian prophecy. But this need not be because 
the temple was still standing at the time of writing. It might equally 
well be because the temple having fallen, and the Son of Man 
having not yet been manifested on the clouds of heaven, the setting 
up of the Shiqqutz having also failed to take place in the real sense 
of Daniel, Matthew could only infer that the fulfilment was still in 
the future. Like Luke he has been ‘‘taught by the event.’’ Like the 
author of Ascensio Isaiae, he knows that some change must be made 
as to locality. But his solution is characteristically simple. Instead 
of carrying further the Markan idea of fulfilment through a per- 
sonal manifestation in “‘the’’ holy place after the Lukan manner, 
Matthew has clung to the letter of Scripture. Daniel, to Matthew’s 
mind, had already had literal fulfilment by erection of an idolatrous 
altar. Only he substitutes ‘‘a’’ holy place for ‘‘the’’ holy place, 
being aware that when the great rebellion actually broke out it had 
been in very truth because of the profanation of a synagogue in 
Caesarea in just this manner. Matthew, then, looks back on the 
profanation and its sequel, the “‘great tribulation,’’ but forward 
to the Coming ‘‘immediately’’ after. 

The explanation of the greater definiteness, and more positive 
form of Matthew’s prophecy of the End as compared with Mark’s 
is therefore really the opposite of what many suppose. Matthew 
knows too well what Daniel really means, and is too loyal to Scrip- 
ture prediction to be satisfied with any alleged fulfilment in which 
the Shiqqutz is made to be a mere personal Antichrist, as in Second 

Thessalonians. Still less can he be satisfied with any attempt such 


106 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


as Luke’s (followed by not a few moderns)* to make it mean 
devastating Roman armies, or their military insignia. Because noth- 
ing else than the actual erection of an idol or heathen altar will 
satisfy the real sense of Daniel, as Matthew is quite well aware, and 
because no such profanation has ever really taken place in the temple, 
Matthew looks elsewhere. If the temple met its overthrow inviolate, 
the fulfilment must be looked for in some other locality. This 1s 
no unheard-of method. Three centuries later Jerome finds a fulfil- 
ment in the erection of an equestrian statue of Hadrian on a spot 
near the Holy of Holies. Chrysostom finds it in the erection of a 
statue of Titus on the site of the ruined temple. Moved by the same 
compulsion of fact, Matthew covers all eventualities by simply 
omitting the definite article. As we shall see, Josephus himself. 
ascribes the outbreak of the war with its fearful aftermath of woes 
for the Jewish people to the profanation of a holy place, and de- 
clares in express terms that the Roman devastation was foretold by 
Daniel.* It remains to determine from the changes introduced in 
his Markan pattern just what Matthew expected to precede and 
follow the setting up of the Shiqqutz. 

It was not an easy task for Matthew, and will not be for us, to 
draw a line of demarkation between the overthrow of Jerusalem, 
which he, in common with Mark, makes the starting. point of the 
whole discourse (Mt. 24:3=Mk. 13:4), and the appearance of 
‘‘the sign of the Coming’’ followed by ‘‘the consummation of the 
world,’’ which he introduces as a parallel to Mark’s ‘‘the sign that 
all these things (that is, the overthrow of the city and temple) are 
about to be fulfilled.’? However, it is probably in part, at least, for 
the sake of effecting this separation that Matthew has completely 
rewritten the paragraph of Mark which introduces the profanation, 
transferring to his Commission of the Twelve (10: 17-21) the pas- 
sage which Mark had placed here (Mk. 13: 9-13), and constructing 
an introduction of his own in which the abominated ‘‘teachers of 
lawlessness’’ appear as the central evil of the woes to come. We 
ean hardly do justice to the minute care with which Matthew has 
here made up a new paragraph of his own, almost entirely from 
scraps of Markan context, save by placing side by side the original, 
as it appears unaltered in Mt. 10:17-21, and the recast, or substi- 
tute, introduced in Mt. 24: 9-14 in place of Mk. 13: 9-13, before 
the prediction of the Shiqqutz. Italics will be used to indicate the 
changes made in the Markan material by the later evangelist. 

3 So e.g., Chajjes. 

4 See above, p. 66, the passage quoted by Swete, and below, p. 110. 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEW 


Mt. 10: 17-21=Mk. 13: 9-13. 

But beware of men, for they will 
deliver you up to sanhedrins, and 
in their synagogues they will scourge 
you. And ye shall be brought before 
governors and kings on my account 
for a witness to them and to the 
Gentiles. And when they deliver you 
up take no thought how or what ye 


shall speak. For it is not ye that 


speak but the Spirit of your Father 
that speaketh in you. And brother 
shall deliver up brother unto death 
and the father his child, and chil- 
dren shall rise up against parents 
and put them to death. And ye shall 
be hated by all on account of my 
name; but he that endureth to the 


107 


Mt. 24: 9-14. Editorial Recast. 

Then will they deliver you up to 
tribulation and will kill you, and ye 
shall be hated of all the Gentiles on 
account of my name. And then shall 
many be stumbled (=Dan. 11: 41) 
and shall deliver up one another and 
hate one another. And many false 
prophets shall arise and shall de- 
ceive many. And on account of the 
increase of lawlessness the love of 
the many will grow cold. But he that 
endureth to the end the same shall 
be saved. And this gospel of the 
kingdom shall be preached in the 
whole' world for witness to all the 
Gentiles. And then shall the End 
come. 


end the same shall be saved. 


In the above the substratum is purely Markan. We do not deny 
that the promise of the Spirit as ‘‘advocate’’ (wapdxAnros) before 
hostile tribunals is derived by Mark in the first instance from the 
Second Source. On the contrary the fact that Luke gives this logion 
in duplicate, once in the Markan setting and once in a different 
context (Lk. 12:11 f.=21:14f.), is a strong indication that he had 
it in twofold form. But in the Mission Chapter, Mt. 10: 17-22, the 
entire context and setting are taken verbatim from Mk. 13: 9-13, 
including the promise of the Spirit-Advocate. From the opening . 
warning ‘‘Beware of men’’ (=Mk. 13:9) to the end, where Mic. 
7:6 is used to reénforce this warning with a prediction of the 
hatred of men and an exhortation to endure to the end (Mt. 10: 21 
f.=Mk. 13:12 f.), we have nothing but Markan material not paral- 
leled elsewhere. If, therefore, the logion promising the Advocate be 
from the Second Source, it has been inserted by Matthew in his 
Mission Chapter in the form given it by Mark. We may defer, then, 
the question of Mark’s sources, and recognize in Mt. 10: 17-21 the 
simple transfer en bloc of Mk. 13: 9-13 to the context of the Send- 
ing of the Twelve. If it be asked what occasions this transfer, we 
have two indications of the reason: (1) The mission of the Twelve 
is strictly limited to ‘‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’’ (10: 
. f.). Delivering up ‘‘to sanhedrins and synagogues’’ (Mk. 13: 9) 
may well have suggested to Matthew that this prediction applied 
more properly to this context. (2) In the substitute paragraph 
““tribulation’”’ (Aas) replaces ‘‘synagogues and sanhedrins,’’ and 


108 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the predicted hatred is delimited by adding “‘the Gentiles”’ after 
‘fall’? (€cecbe pucovpevor td ravrov Mt. 10:22=Mk. 18:13: to 
névtwv Tov €Ovov). These two considerations seem to indicate that 
Matthew differentiates the ‘‘tribulation’’ (Aas) of the Doom-chap- 
ter from the persecutions to be endured by the Twelve according to 
the Mission-chapter. The ‘‘tribulation’’ is that endured by Chris- 
tians generally in the Gentile world. It is no objection to this differ- 
entiation that in 10:18 he takes over along with the rest the pre- 
diction of Mk. 13:9b ‘‘and ye shall stand before governors and 
kines for my sake for a witness unto them’’; for he probably has 
not in mind (as appears to be the case with Mark) Paul’s citation 
before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, and perhaps Nero; or, if he 
has in mind the same citations as Mark, the witness ‘‘to the Gen- 
tiles’? which he predicts in 10: 22 is not thought of as delivered in 
Gentile territory. That is, it includes Felix, Festus, and Agrippa 
II, but not Nero. The geographic outlook is determined by the 
strict limitation of the horizon in the Mission-chapter to Palestine 
(10: 23). 

If we now turn to the substitute paragraph in the Doom-chapter, 
Mt. 24: 9-14 which replaces Mk. 13: 9-18, it will be seen at once by 
all who have familiarized themselves with Matthew’s style and 
special interest that he has no new material. The entire paragraph 
is an elaborate patchwork of phrases from the Markan context, plus 
a phrase from Daniel (Dan. 11:41) and one or two characteristic 
of Matthew himself. It centers on his special complaint against the 
‘‘workers of lawlessness’’ 24:12; cf. 7:28; 18:41; 23:28. The 
_ paragraph is a typical bit of editorial composition. As a whole it 
reproduces what Matthew conceives to be the substance and general 
bearing of the displaced section of Mark. But three changes are 
noticeable in this substitute: (1) The addition of a further warning 
in the same terms as Mark employs further on (Mk. 13: 21-23=Mt. 
24: 23-25), but here condensed, against being led astray by ‘‘false 
prophets.’’ (2) Connection of this ‘‘error’’ (zAavyj) with the increase 
of ‘‘lawlessness,’’ coldness, and defection of many. (3) Assurance 
in positive form (in Mk. 13:10 it is negative) that the End will 
come as soon as ‘‘this gospel of the kingdom’’ has been preached 
for a witness ‘‘throughout the whole world’? (év oAn 77 oixovpery). 

The assurance, ‘‘Then shall the ‘End come’’ (ver. 14) is placed 
over against the warning of the previous paragraph (ver. 6=Mk. 
13:7): “But the End is not yet.’’? Thus placed, between this warn- 
ing and the prophecy of the Shiqqutz, and containing its own re- 
iterated warning against the false prophets (vv. 4 f.=ver. 11) the 
adverb ‘‘then’’ (rére) becomes very emphatic. The substitute para- 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEW 109 


graph can hardly be intended by Matthew otherwise than as a 
summary of the warning of Mark taken as a whole. This view has 
support in the owv resumptive of verse 15 substituted for the simple 
dé of Mark. The sense will be: ‘‘Inasmuch as the vicissitudes 
summed up in verses 4-8 (—=Mk. 13: 5-9) are but the beginning of 
the birth-pangs, and the End can only come when the gospel has 
been proclaimed throughout the entire world, when ye see the 
Shiqqutz . . . do not be led astray by the false Christs and false 
prophets.’’ A further strong support of this interpretation is the 
addition made at the end of this section from Q (Mt. 24: 26-28=— 
Lk. 17: 23 f., 37). This addition reénforces the warning of Mark 
not to be led astray in this manner. 

The vital question for Matthew’s interpretation of the prophecy 
is the question whether the Shiqqutz, whose real nature he so clearly 
understands, is something he still awaits, a prophecy not yet ful- 
filled but sure of fulfilment; or whether he too, taught by the event, 
knows that there must be a further time of waiting after its appear- 
ance, though he encourages his readers to believe that the time will 
not be long. 

It might be possible to hold that Matthew overlooks the mani- 
fest connection in the source he is following between the appearance 
of the Shiqqutz and the events of the Jewish war. On this assump- 
tion it could be maintained that the “‘great tribulation’’ falling 
upon ‘‘those in Judea’’ was understood by him as something still 
to come. But this view is improbable, and has against it the few 
but vital changes Matthew has made. The nature of these is well 
expressed by McNeile in his Commentary ad loc.: 

In Mk. the reference is vague and cryptic, the mase. éornxéra implying 
a person or personification, who will stand émov od det. Mt. notes the fulfil- 
ment of prophecy (7d pnOév xrd.); he makes the grammatical correction éorés, 
and writes év rérw ayiy, which may mean Jerusalem (II Mace. 3:1f.) or 
even the Holy Land generally, but probably [?] the temple (Ac. 6:13; 
21: 28). 

We must differ from Dr. McNeile as regards the probability of 
a reference to the temple in the anarthrous é&v rorw ayiw. Had it 
been the purpose of Matthew to persist in the ‘‘vague and eryptic’”’ 
style of Mark there was no need to alter the phrase ‘‘where he ought 
not.’’ The other changes are made for the sake of showing agree- 
ment with Daniel. It can only have been for good reason that 
Daniel’s clear and definite reference to ‘‘the sanctuary, even the 
fortress’’ should have been replaced by a vague term ‘‘which may 
mean Jerusalem, or even the Holy Land generally.’’ In this case 
the reason for vagueness is very obvious. ‘‘The’’ sanctuary, even the 


110 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


fortress, spoken of by Daniel, had never experienced the -profana- 
tion; but ‘‘a’’ holy place had. The Jewish war, with all its un- 
precedented horrors, had actually broken out over the profanation 
of a synagogue at Caesarea by a member of the ‘‘Syrian’’ or Gen- 
tile party in the long-standing warfare between Jews and Greeks 
for the control of the city. Encouraged no doubt by the implicit 
permission of Caius to such demonstrations outside Jerusalem, this 
‘‘riotous person’’ according to Josephus (War II. xiv. 5): 

turned an earthen vessel bottom upward at the entrance of the synagogue 
and sacrificed birds on (the extemporized altar). This thing terribly ex- 
asperated the Jews, because their laws were affrented and the place was 
polluted. 


From this provocative act at Caesarea against Jewish religion — 
Josephus dates the outbreak of the great war. Doubtless there were 
others, especially at Caesarea, who took a similar view, though in 
such a mass of inflammable material it would have been difficult 
to identify the first spark of actual conflict. Matthew appears to 
agree with the view espoused by Josephus. He continues with 
Mark’s description of the ‘‘great tribulation’’ on ‘‘those that are 
in Judea,’’ pointing out that this was a fulfilment of what had been 
‘“spoken by Daniel the prophet.’’ He also repeats after it the warn- 
ing of Mark against the ‘‘false Christs and false prophets’’ who 
will then arise to lead astray even the elect, reminding them that 
Jesus himself had foretold this ery ‘‘Lo, here; lo, there, is the 
Christ.’’ But in addition to transcribing the warning of Mark he 
supplements by adding, as we have seen, further extracts from the 
same Q discourse on which Mark had drawn in 13:15 f., 21 (cf. 
Mt. 24: 26-28=Lk. 17: 22-24, 31, 37). 

This entire paragraph of Mt. 24: 15-28, beginning with the re- 
sumptive ‘‘therefore,’’ must accordingly be treated as epexegetical 
to the preceding paragraph, verses 3-14. The ‘‘great tribulation’’ on 
‘‘those that are in Judea’’ particularizes the general warning of 
the tribulations spoken of in verses 8 and 9. Similarly the general 
warnings not to be led astray in verses 4 f. and 11 look forward to 
those of 23-25 and 26-28. The reader is not meant to understand 
that there will be several periods during which he must be on his 
guard against “‘false prophets and false Christs,’’ but he is given 
repeated warnings of the same period of especial danger. It will be 
after the “‘great tribulation’’ to be expected when the profanation 
of a holy place (that in Caesarea?) shall have kindled the flame of 
revolt. Matthew here gives every indication of having been “‘taught 
by the event.’’ 

A third paragraph (Mt. 24: 29-31=Mk. 13: 24-27) brings in the 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MATTHEW 111 


description of ‘‘the End.’’ There is slight variation from Mark, 
principally the addition in verses 30f. of the Mourning of the 
Tribes from Zech. 12:10, and the Last Trump from Is. 27: 138. Only 
the addition of the single adverb ‘‘immediately’’ (ci0éws) in verse 
29 causes difficulty to supporters of the priority of Mark, though in 
the judgment of MecNeile ‘‘ Matthew is probably not more original, 
but only more circumstantial.’’ This, however, is not a sufficient 
answer. The change from the Markan form ‘‘But in those days, 
after that tribulation’’ to ‘‘immediately,’’ ete., is intended as an 
improvement. Matthew desires to give more definite encouragement 
to a suffering Church. It is true that he has not a different chro- 
nology, but only a different tone, or emphasis, in repeating the same 
chronology. But ‘‘ Daniel the prophet’’ seems to him to warrant the 
adverb ‘‘immediately’’ (cf. Dan. 12:1). The time is indeed ‘‘nearer 
than when they first believed.’’ 

It is needful to keep here in mind Matthew’s recast of the middle 
paragraph of Mark and attachment of this substitute as a kind of 
supplement to the first paragraph. We learn from it that to Mat- 
thew’s view the whole period of sufferings is one, and that it in- 
cludes the period of ‘‘tribulation’’ (@Ads) among the Gentiles,’ the 
period of apostasy, the period of coldness in the Church and the 
growth of ‘‘lawlessness,’’ the period of the false prophets and false 
Christs, and the period of the preaching of the gospel of the king- 
dom to the whole world, as well as the particular ‘‘great tribula- 
tion’’ to ‘‘those that are in Judea.’’ The period in which all this 
is included, not the mere period of the Jewish war, is that which 
Matthew means by ‘‘the tribulation of those days.’’ It is after this 
that he predicts an ‘‘immediate’’ coming of ‘“‘the sign of the Son 
of Man in heaven.’’ How long the ‘‘great tribulation’’ which fol- 
lows the profanation of ‘‘a holy place’’ was expected to continue 
one cannot say. But the close correspondence with the catastrophe 
of 66-70, in particular the greater definiteness and circumstantiality 
of Matthew as compared with Mark, make it most difficult not to 
include the Domitianic persecution. Like his predecessor Mark our 
first evangelist also appears to look back to the great war and the 
fate of Jerusalem in 70 a.p. (cf. 22:7) as having already fulfilled 
the earlier events foretold by **Daniel the prophet.’’ But the suf-. 
fering has not ceased. The “‘great tribulation’’ on ‘‘those that are 
in Judea’’ and the flight from Jerusalem are for him the beginning 


5 The language employed is apparently intended to distinguish this later and 
more extensive persecution from the sufferings (dwyyuéds) which the Twelve 
must expect to be inflicted on them among their fellow-countrymen (Mt. 10: 
16-23). | 


112 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


of those world-wide wrongs under which the Church in his day still 
groaned. Only the End, the promised deliverance by the Coming 
of the Son of Man from heaven to gather his elect with the sound 
of the archangel’s trump, is for Matthew still in the future. But 
it is not far off. These are things which ‘‘must shortly come to 
pass.’’ Such is the invariable hope of Jewish and Jewish-Christian 
apocalypse. 


CHAPTER X 
THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN LUKE 


Critics who still venture to affirm that the alterations of Luke in 
the Eschatological Discourse of Mark show the later evangelist to 
have been ‘‘taught by the event’’ have at least three formidable 
antagonists, one an eminent classical scholar, another the leading 
church-historian of our generation, the third a Semitic philologian 
of the first rank. In meeting invaders such as Blass, Harnack, and 
Torrey the New Testament critic will be wise to employ proved 
weapons from his own armory. 

It is no small advantage to approach the question from a com- 
plete study of the development of New Testament eschatology as a 
whole. Accepting heartily the verdict of Professor Torrey that the 
Shiqqutz prophecy of Mk. 13:14 cannot be accounted for save as 
a product of the crisis of the year 40, we have seen that this 
prophecy, while no doubt originally promulgated as ‘‘a word of 
the Lord’’ in the same sense as the Revelation of John (Rev. 1:1), 
clearly represents in the main a revival and application of the 
vision of Daniel concerning the profanation of the temple (Dan. 
9: 24-27; 11:31; 12:11-18). We have also seen that in order to 
maintain the general and essential truth of this ‘‘word of the 
Lord,’’ after the failure (through the assassination of Caligula, 
Jan. 24, 41) of its literal fulfilment, it would be necessary to show 
that while the actual setting up of the Shiqqutz had not taken 
place, the tyrant having even granted special exemption to the 
temple before his death, still the larger menace was only postponed. 
Such postponement is the outstanding characteristic in the escha- 
tology of Second Thessalonians with its new feature of the ‘‘Re- 
strainer.”’ 

Even in 50-64 the threat still impended. Jewish and Christian 
monotheism was again rapidly nearing a repetition of the desperate 
conflict against Antiochus. To broader minds such as Paul’s this 
was an unmistakable sign of the times. To minds accustomed to the 
half-mythological imagery of apocalypse this irrepressible conflict 
of worshippers of the true God against the forces of irreligion, ever 
increasing throughout the empire and ever taking refuge under the 
sycophantic pretext of Caesar-worship, would readily assume the 
dramatic form of a parody of messianic redemption. In First Thes- 


114 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


salonians we actually find, during the Pauline period if not from 
Paul’s own pen, such a recasting of the Danielic prophecy. Instead 
of the material Shiqqutz in the temple we find ‘‘a person or per- 
sonification.’’ Beliar (a Hebraic personification of the powers of 
evil) is to become incarnate in the person of a Man of Sin, an in- 
verted messiah or Antichrist, who will carry out the Danielic pro- 
gram at least to the extent of a desecrating self-manifestation ‘‘in 
the temple of God.’’ If the profanation prophecy of Mark cannot 
be understood save as a product of the crisis of 40 A.D. we are cer- 
tainly justified in saying that the Thessalonian eschatology, in- 
cluding the Antichrist doctrine of Second Thessalonians, can only 
be understood as a modification of it, adapting it to the changed 
circumstances of the year 950. | 

We have also examined another and more studied recast of the 
same ‘‘prophecy’’ in which the salient feature is the effort to bring 
it into the most exact conformity to the Scriptural original that the 
actual course of events would allow. Matthew shows decisive evi- 
dence of an origin considerably later than Mark, in fact would by 
most critics be regarded as clearly subsequent to the punishment 
meted out by the ‘‘king’’ in the parable of the Slighted Invitation, 
who “‘sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned 
their city’’ (Mt. 22:7). By his direct reference to ‘‘Daniel the 
prophet’’ (not mentioned in Mark), and his alterations bringing 
the Markan apocalypse into closer conformity to Old Testament 
prophecy, more especially to Daniel, it would seem undeniable that 
in the Matthean form of the Doom-chapter, as in other passages of 
the same Gospel, strict and literal ‘‘fulfilment of the Scripture’’ 
was a strongly influential motive. Reénforcement by added Q say- 
ings 1s also here present, as in Luke; but theories of a separate and 
more primitive form of the Little Apocalypse in the hands of 
Matthew, apart from his use of Mark and Q, are gratuitous. Once 
again we find that the basis of the “‘prophecy’’ remains unaltered, 
though the evangelist permits himself certain adaptations of the 
form. These changes are always in line with the evangelist’s own 
individual predilections, as well as the exigencies of current con- 
ditions. 

It is clearly possible for historians and philologians alike to deny 
that we have in the case of Luke’s alterations in the Doom-chapter 
of Mark, any reflection of current events. For in fact the denial 
is actually made. But it is less easy to make when a preliminary 
study has been engaged in, showing the actual process of develop- 
ment in primitive Christian eschatology. In the face of Pauline and 
Matthean adaptations it is surely difficult to maintain that still 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN LUKE 115 


later changes from the Markan form were not made because Luke 
was “‘taught by the event.’’ At least if such was not the cause those 
who deny it remain debtors for a better explanation. Luke does not 
elsewhere make changes from his Markan model without a reason, 


especially changes such as the following: 


Mk. 13: 14-19 


14 But when ye see the abomina- 
tion of desolation taking his stand 
where he ought not (let him that 
readeth understand), then let those 
that are in Judea flee into the moun- 
tains. 15 Let him that is on the 
house-top not come down nor enter 
to take anything out of his house. 
16 And he that is gone out to the 
field, let him not return back to 
fetch his garment. 17 And woe unto 
them that are great with child, and 
to them that give suck in those days. 
18 But pray that it happen not in 
winter. 19 For those days shall be 
tribulation such as hath not oe- 
curred from the foundation of the 
creation that God created until now, 
and never shall be. 20 And if the 
Lord had not cut short the days no 
flesh would have been saved. But for 
the sake of the elect whom he fore- 
ordained he cut short the days. 


Lk. 21: 20-24 
20 But when ye see Jerusalem 


—compassed with armies then know 


that her desolation has come near. 
21 Then let those that are in Judea 
flee into the mountains, and they 
that are in the midst of her let them 
go forth; and let those that are in 
the environs not enter into her; 22 
for these are days of vengeance, to 
accomplish all things that are writ- 
ten. 23 Woe unto them that are 
great with child, and to them that 
give suck in those days. For there 
shall be great distress upon the land 
and wrath toward this people. 24 
And they shall fall by the mouth of 
the sword and be carried captive 
among all the nations, and Jerusa- 
lem shall be trodden down by the 
Gentiles until the times of the Gen- 
tiles are fulfilled. 


The changes marked here by italic type show that this paragraph, 
left practically untouched by Matthew, has been almost completely 
rewritten by Luke (on the basis, as we shall see, of a source of 
Jewish type, saturated with Old Testament phraseology, which 
Luke has elsewhere embodied). Just enough remains of the Markan 
pattern to show that it really constitutes the foundation. Thus 
Luke’s opening verse (21:20) retains the word ‘‘desolation’’ 
(€pypwois) from the model, and reproduces the Markan warning 
(taken from Dan. 9: 23) ‘‘Let him that readeth (évaywooxov) under- 
stand’’ in the form ‘‘Then know ye’’ (rére y@re). The siege forces 
of Vespasian here take the place of the Shiqqutz. But while the 
original is not wanting in traits which show clearly that the ‘‘great 
tribulation,’’ from which ‘‘those that are in Judea’”’ are to flee to 
the mountains is certainly the suffering of a.p. 66-70, Luke has re- 


116 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


cast the prediction from motives of his own. These are worth exam- 
ining by a little closer scrutiny. 

It has already been intimated that the Discourse as compiled by 
Mark attaches certain logia which occur elsewhere in Luke and 
Matthew, and may therefore be referred with high probability to 
the Second Source. Among these are the two sayings on Flight from 
Housetop and Field (Mk. 13:15 f.) and the Cry Lo, here; Lo, 
there (Mk. 13:21 f.). Both these occur in duplicate in Luke (21: 
21=17: 31, and 17: 21=17: 23), the latter in duplicate in Matthew 
also (Mt. 24: 11—24: 23-28). Both Matthew and Luke avoid no- 
ticeable duplication by rewriting. Thus Lk. 17:31, which is the 
real logion in practically the same form which Mark has taken over 
(very inappropriately) in 13:15 f., is thus rewritten: 7 


Leelee dle tel aM Loe Ls £5} Lk. 21: 21 

In that day he that is upon the And let those that are in the 
house-top and his belongings in the midst of her (Jerusalem) go forth; 
house, let him not come down to and those that are in the environs 
carry them off; and he that isin the let them not enter into her. 
field hkewise, let him not return 
back. . 


So complete is the difference that we might never have recognized 
that the two stand for the same utterance had not Luke placed the 
second exactly in the context corresponding to its Markan parallel. 
What he further appends is in line with the utterance of this 
Special Source on the ‘‘vengeance’’ executed by God for the sake 
of His elect (cf. Lk. 4:19; 18:7 f.), and is cast in Old Testament 
phraseology (Is. 61:2; Hos. 9:7): 


Tor these are days of vengeance to accomplish all things that are written. 


The next lines (“‘Woe to them that are great with child,’’ etc.) 
resume the thread of Mark, only to depart from it immediately by 
omitting the enigmatical verse ‘‘Pray that your flight be not in 
winter’ (Mk. 13:18), and the apocalyptic saying on the ‘‘shorten- 
ing of the days’’ (Mk. 18: 20; cf. ‘‘Enoch’’ ap. Ps.-Barn. iv. 1). The 
remainder, in which Mark had described the ‘‘great tribulation”’ 
in terms borrowed from Dan. 12:1, Luke turns into a plain predic- 
tion of the ‘‘wrath upon this land,’’ the slaughter and captivity of 
its people, and the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles until 
the fulfilment of their ‘‘times.’’ The phraseology is Jewish, recalling 
Keclus. 28:18, and with direct employment of Zech. 12:3 (LXX). 
We have the same impression as before that it is not the Gentile 
Luke who is directly responsible for these changes, but some Jewish- 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN LUKE 117 


Christian hand, more expert in the Scriptures than the client of 
Theophilus. 

It is needless to continue our comparison of Luke’s recast of the 
Markan discourse by a detailed survey of the section on the Coming 
(Lk. 21: 25-28=Mk. 138: 24-27). It is worthy of note that Mark’s 
second warning against the false Christs and false prophets who 
will appear after the Great Tribulation with the ery ‘‘Lo, here is 
the Christ’’ is omitted by Luke. He seems to have considered one 
such warning sufficient—that given at the outset (Lk. 21:8 f.). The 
omission only makes Mark’s special solicitude more noticeable. As 
we have already seen, Mark is using for this a Q logion. Perhaps 
it is because Luke is aware of this that he omits the passage here, 
having given it in more authentic form at 17:20 f. The prediction 
of the Coming repeats the substance of Mk. 13: 24-27 with broad 
differences of great interest to the student of the Special Source of 
Luke and its relation to Mark, but not of immediate concern for 
our present enquiry. We merely note that its tone, like that of 
Matthew, is distinctly a tone of encouragement to expect the Com- 
ing soon. But is it reasonable to maintain, in spite of the changes 
from Mark, that the writer is not aware of the fall of Jerusalem ? 

We have one further item of evidence in answer to this question. 
Luke introduces after Mark’s account of the Entry into Jerusalem 
(Mk. 11: 1-10) °a section corresponding to Matthew’s Justification 
of the Children’s Hosannas (Lk. 19:39 f.=Mt. 21:15 f.), and upon 
this a Lament over Jerusalem (19: 41-44). This section is so typi- 
eally a product of the same pen which has given us the recast of the 
Markan Doom-chapter that there will probably be none to dispute 
their affinity, the additions in both cases being entirely peculiar to 
Luke. The case for coloration of the prediction of Jerusalem’s fall 
by the event would not be complete without the addition of this 
exquisite poem: 

And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If 
thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto 
peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon 
thee when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee 
round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground and 
thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon 
another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. 


In Luke this section forms a substitute for Mark’s story of the 
Cursing of the Fig Tree, given in Lk. 13: 6-9 in form of a parable. 
The section offers a kind of parallel to the Markan Eschatological 
Discourse opened by the scene of Jesus sitting opposite the temple, 
predicting its fate. It also is founded on the saying “‘ Not one stone 


118 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


shall be left upon another.’’ One might easily imagine it a later, 
more poetic (and far more sympathetic) development of Mark’s 
story. But whether there be literary dependence or not, and on 
whichever side priority lies, two inferences may surely be drawn: 

(1) The Lukan alterations in the profanation prophecy of Mark 
are less arbitrary than might otherwise appear. For in substituting 
‘“When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies’’ in place of 
‘“When ye see the abomination of desolation taking his stand where 
he ought not’’ Luke is not using his own words, but those of a 
source (the so-called Special Source of Luke) scarcely employed 
outside this Gospel. Of this Special Source it is a distinctive and 
characteristic feature to introduce systematically on appropriate 
occasions in the discourse of Jesus clear predictions of the fate of 
Jerusalem in consequence of its disregard of the warning to repent. 
Its eschatology is given at length in Lk. 12: 35—13:9, the parable 
of the Barren Fig Tree forming its conclusion. The preceding para- 
graph (Lk. 13:1-5) is a definite prediction of the slaughter of an 
unrepentant Israel by the sword of the Romans, and the crushing 
of the inhabitants of Jerusalem under the crumbling walls of their 
city. The parable of the Fig Tree (‘‘Lo, these three years I come 
seeking fruit’’) shows what is meant in the closing words of our 
first extract ‘‘the time of thy visitation.’’ Isolate the Special Source 
of Luke and one obtains a document wherein references to the fate 
of Jerusalem stand out in unexampled clearness. 

Lk. 18: 22-35 is largely in the same tone as its sequel. But it is 
partly shared by Matthew, and might therefore be regarded as of 
doubtful derivation from the Special Source. Passing over this we 
adduce as of manifestly identical derivation the section added by 
Luke to the story of the leading forth to crucifixion (Lk. 23: 27-31) : 


And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women 
who were bewailing and lamenting him. But Jesus, turning unto them said: 
Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and 
for your children. For behold, the days are coming, in which they shall 
say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts 
that never gave suck (cf. Mk. 13:17). Then shall they begin to say to the 
mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these 
things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? 


If one put together in a single series these extracts from the Special 
Source of Luke it will be manifest that his alterations in the 
Eschatological Discourse of Mark are not made solely on his own 
responsibility. Also in view of the highly poetical nature and form 
of these extracts, their marked correspondence with the actualities 
of the siege, and the strong contrast between them and the refer- 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN LUKE 119 


ences of Mark both as to sympathetic feeling and deep realization 
of the horrors of the war, it will be apparent that whether earlier 
or later than Mark they reflect the sorrow of one whose heart has 
been wrung by the actual experience of the siege. 

(2) A second inference to be drawn from the perception that 
Luke’s alterations in the Markan Discourse have a basis in his 
Special Source is the fact of his preference here for this Source. 
Mark is usually Luke’s main reliance. He does not alter its state- 
ments without strong reason. In this case he has entirely set aside 
the idea of a profanation, whether through Antichrist or through 
some more material object of idolatrous worship. How is this to be 
accounted for? If only one account of this profanation prophecy 
existed it might be possible to imagine both the Special Source and 
Luke personally setting it aside out of pure dislike or skepticism as 
to its authenticity, quite untaught “‘by the event.’’ When one has 
reviewed the entire history of this strongly entrenched factor in 
primitive church eschatology, from its promulgation and acceptance 
as ‘‘a word of the Lord’’ in the crisis of 40 a.p. down to its final 
reassertion by Matthew in terms assimilated as closely as possible 
to Scripture, especially the Danielic original, he will be less ready 
to maintain that Luke and his Special Source give no evidence of 
having been ‘‘taught by the event.’’ 


CHAPTER XI 
THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK?’ 


ONE can perhaps understand the common impression expressed by 
Gould to the effect that the Eschatological Discourse of Mark shows 
that the destruction of Jerusalem ‘‘was impending,’’ and more 
cautiously by Swete in his reference to ‘‘the absence of any indica- 
tion that Jerusalem had already fallen,’’ when one approaches the 
question from the side of Luke, characterized as this later Gospel - 
is by much clearer indications, Relatively, as is quite obvious, the 
later Gospel is that in which the critic must first see (or perhaps 
fail to see) that the evangelist has been taught by the event. Mark 
has certainly not discarded out and out the entire expectation of a 
profanation by Shiqqutz, as Luke has done. He merely takes ex- 
traordinary pains to warn the Church not to imagine that the end 
will come immediately after this, and not to be misled by the cries of 
Lo, here; Lo, there, emitted by the false Christs and false prophets 
whose activity may be expected at that time. As for the Shiqqutz 
it is still definitely to be expected. Where, in what form, under 
what relation to the Coming, we have still to enquire. Clearly the 
Lukan alterations, entirely eliminating the profanation feature in 
favor of descriptions of the siege, represent a later development. 
If, then, it be only a question as between two, no account being 
taken of changes made by Mark upon some still earlier form of the 
prophecy, one may easily receive the impression that Luke has been 
taught by the event, whereas Mark has not. As compared with Luke 
there is indeed in Mark ‘‘absence of any indication that Jerusalem 
has already fallen.’’ But to reason in this way is as if one should 
say: ‘‘The heightening of the marvelous in the Gospels is one of 
the features indicative of the priority of Mark. The miracles of 
Mark are relatively simple. Therefore they have experienced no 
heightening at all.’’ Admitting that the process of adjustment to 
the event has continued after Mark, we have now to enquire 
whether earlier stages of the process have not left perceptible traces 
within the Markan Doom-chapter itself. The survey already made 


1 For specially instructive source-analysis of the Eschatological Discourse 
in Mark see Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, by Sanday et al. (1911), 
in particular the discussion by Streeter on pp. 179-183 of ‘‘The Apocalypse of 
Mk. xiii.’’ 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK 121 


of the lines of development of primitive church eschatology should 
help us to decide. 

The agglutinative process by which later evangelists have con- 
structed long discourses out of brief sayings of Jesus, a process 
earried to the furthest extreme by Matthew, is still at its first be- 
ginnings in Mark. Scarcely more than three such composite dis- 
courses can be counted in this Gospel, a Discourse on Receiving 
versus Stumbling (Mk. 9:30-50), a Discourse on the Mystery of 
the Kingdom as Revealed in Parables (4: 1-34), and the Eschato- 
logical Discourse. To these some might perhaps be disposed to add 
the Discourse on Inward Purity (7:1-23) and the Parable of the 
Usurpers in the Vineyard (12:1-12). In all five cases, however, 
Mark has a more or less stereotyped method. A particular saying, 
significant for his purpose, becomes the point of departure for a 
series of loosely connected logia of kindred (or supposedly kindred) 
nature, usually in the form of later explanation to the inner circle. 
Thus after the Parable of the Sower there is withdrawal on the part 
of Jesus and the Twelve for further explanation and elaboration 
of the teaching in private (4:10 ff.). After the teaching on Inward 
Purity the same scene is repeated (7:17 ff.; cf. 10:10). After the 
Discourse on Receiving versus Stumbling we have again the same 
(9:33). The Eschatological Discourse merely apples this conven- 
tional method on the larger scale, attaching to the great saying on 
the Spiritual Temple (13:1 f.) an interpretative discourse uttered 
by Jesus to a group of the four first-called disciples ‘‘privately, as 
he sat on the Mount of Olives over against the temple.’’ The whole 
discourse, accordingly, is to be understood as an interpretation in 
greater detail to the inner circle of the contents of the saying re- 
ported by Mark in the form: ‘‘There shall not be left here one 
stone upon another which shall not be thrown down.’’ The whole 
discourse has reference to the overthrow of the temple. 

In view of the more spiritual form in which this saying of Jesus 
on the superseding of the visible temple has been taken up in the 
Pauline Epistles and elsewhere, we must raise the question whether 
here at the very outset we have not already indications of adapta- 
tion by Mark to the idea of a definite prediction on Jesus’ part of 
the events of 66-70; for, as we have seen, the saying in itself con- 
sidered does not require specific application. In the Special Source 
of Luke, as already noted, the parallel is in the form ‘‘they shall 
not leave in thee one stone upon another,’’ and in this source the 
specific prediction of the overthrow of Jerusalem is ascribed to 
Jesus on several occasions. 

' After this stage-setting the Doom-chapter of Mark proceeds with 


122 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the Discourse to the Four which we have already recognized to be a 
typical Markan agglutination. Several of the factors show by their 
double appearance in Matthew and Luke that they have been drawn 
(like a number of brief logia in Mark) from Q material.? Besides 
these we have unmistakable borrowings (direct or indirect) from 
Scripture, including not only Daniel, but in verse 8 Is. 19:2, in 
verse 12 Mic. 7:6, and in verse 24 Is..13:10 and 34:4. In verse 
20 we even appear to have an Enoch fragment quoted in Barn. iv. 
8 though not otherwise known. But as universally recognized, even 
by critics who refuse to admit the use of any separate written 
source, we have as the skeleton and outline of the whole discourse 
a typical Little Apocalypse centering on the Danielic prediction of 
the Shiqqutz, and applied exactly as Paul applies the same doctrine, . 
viz., for the repression of the exaggerated expectations of the Thes- 
salonians of an immediate Coming of the Lord. In order to deter- 
mine the question whether we have indeed in this carefully con- 
structed Eschatological Discourse evidence of adaptation to the 
changed conditions of the period after the overthrow of the temple 
we must effect some analysis of the agglutination into its elements. 
Fortunately we have the means of doing this in the parallels, among 
which we should not fail to include the Little Apocalypse of Paul. 

Besides the later parallels already discussed in Matthew and Luke 
we have observed already certain duplicates in these later Gospels, 
indicating their employment of another source, or sources. In par- 
ticular we have found an extended eschatological discourse in Lk. 
12: 1-12, 35-59; 13: 1-9, closing with the warning to Jerusalem of 
its impending overthrow and the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. 
These sections we found reason to connect with the so-called Special 
Source of Luke. This source has unmistakable literary relation with 
the latter part of Mark if only because of the incident of the Barren 
Fig Tree (Lk. 13:6-9=Mk. 11:12-14, 20-23). Like the Markan 
Doom-chapter this Q eschatology follows the Woes on Scribes and 
Pharisees (Lk. 11: 37-54—Mk. 12:38-40). A far-flung fragment 
extends to Lk. 18:34 f.=Mt. 23: 37-39. 

We shall not here reproduce the section on Watchfulness for the 
Coming (Lk. 12: 35-46=Mt. 24:43-25:13), although this also has 
its briefer parallel in Mk. 18:35 f. We shall merely set in parallel 
columns the Warning of Persecutions to be Endured as it appears 
in Mk, 18: 9-11, 12 f., placing in the left-hand column the parallel 
material of the Lukan Special Source in the order given by Mark 

2 Not necessarily from the Second Source. The symbol Q is used to signify 


non-Markan material found coincidently in Matthew and Luke regardless of 
its derivation from one source or another. 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK 


123 


and enclosing in square brackets the portions which seem to have 
been added by this evangelist. Priority as between particular logia 
and later development into consecutive prediction will not be diffi- 


cult to determine. 


Lk. 12:11 f., 49-53=21: 12-19. 


Mk. 13: 9-11, 12f. 


Promise of the Advocate 


(Cf. Lk. 12:11f.) 
(Cf. Acts 23:11; 25: 23 ff.) 


(Cf. Acts 1: 6-8.) 


11 And when they bring you be- 
fore the synagogues, and the rulers 
and the authorities, be not anxious 
how or what ye shall answer, or what 
ye shall say: 12 for the Holy Spirit 
shall teach you in that very hour 
what ye ought to say. 


[9 But take ye heed to yourselves : 


_ for they shall deliver you up to 


councils; and in synagogues shall 
ye be beaten; and before governors 
and kings shall ye stand for my 
sake, for a testimony unto them. 
10 And the gospel must first be 
preached to all the nations. | 

11 And when they lead you to 
judgment, and deliver you up, be 
not anxious beforehand what ye 
shall speak; but whatsoever shall be 
given you in that hour, that speak 
ye; for it is not ye that speak, but 
the Holy Spirit. 


Warning of Division in Households. Cf. Mic. 7: 6. 


49 I came to cast fire upon the 
earth; and what will I if it be al- 
ready kindled? 50 But I have a 
baptism to be baptized with; and 
how am I straitened till it be ac- 
complished? 51 Think ye that I 
am come to give peace in the earth? 
I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 
52 for there shall be from hence- 
forth five in one house divided, three 
against two, and two against three. 
53 They shall be divided father 
against son, and son against father; 
mother against daughter, and 
daughter against mother; mother 
in law against her daughter in law, 
and daughter in law against her 
mother in law. 


fir Dan. 11:35; 12: 12.) 


(Cf. Mk. 10:38.) 


12 And brother shall deliver up 
brother to death, and the father his 
child; and children shall rise up 
against parents and cause them to 
be put to death. 


[13 And ye shall be hated of all 
men for my name’s sake: but he 
that endureth to the end the same 
shall be saved. | 


Manifestly Mark is not interested in the logion about Division in 
Families for its own sake, nor as a fulfilment of Mic. 7:6, but only 


124 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


as it may serve to prove Jesus’ foreknowledge and prediction of the 
sufferings Christians would have to undergo in the Empire at large, 
at the hands of ‘‘all men’’ on account of the Name. The Division 
in Households of the original logion becomes in his adaptation a 
prediction of betrayal to the persecuting authorities by treacherous 
kinsfolk, the notorious ‘‘delatores’’ of Roman persecution. 
Pursuing still the order of the Markan agglutination we come 
next to the crucial verse predicting the temple profanation. It is 
highly important to observe what follows as parallel to this in the 
context of the Special Source. It is the exhortation of Lk. 12: 54 ff. 


to Read the Signs of the Times: 


Lk. 12: 54-13: 5. 


54 And he said to the Multitudes 
also, When ye see a cloud rising in 
the west, straightway ye say, There 
cometh a shower; and so it cometh 
to pass. . . . How is it that ye 
know not how to interpret this 
time? (Example of the Galileans 
whose blood Pilate mingled with 
their sacrifices and the men of Jeru- 
salem on whom the tower in Siloam 
fell, with the warning, Except ye 
repent ye shall all perish in like 
manner. ) 


Mk. 13:14. 


14 But when ye see the abomina- | 
tion of desolation standing where 
he ought not (let him that readeth 
understand). (The passage referred 
to is Dan. 12:11. Mark continues 
with a warning to “them that are in 
Judaea” to “flee to the mountains,” 
adapting to this certain logia from 
the Special Source (Lk. 17: 31; 23: 
29 f.; 17: 22 f.) and passages from 
Daniel (Dan. 12:1) and Isaiah (Is. 
10: 23; cf. Rom. 9: 28). The whole 
section, verses 14-23, intermingles 


apocalyptic Seripture with Q logia.) 


Beyond question Q elements enter into the Markan agglutination. 
This is admitted by nearly all critics. But what most requires to 
be observed is Mark’s relation to the Special Source of Luke, par- 
ticularly its Eschatological Discourse. It begins at Lk. 12: 1-9 with 
an Exhortation to Fearless Confession closely paralleled in Mt. 
10: 26-33. This, then, is unmistakably Q material. A duplicate ap- 
pears in Lk. 21: 12-19, but this is manifestly due to the fact that 
this chapter of Luke as a whole rests on the Doom-chapter of Mark, 
though (as we have seen above) Luke has made some changes and 
additions by recomparison of the Special Source (Q). A typical 
instance is his addition in the closing verse (Mk. 13: 13=Lk. 21: 
17 f.) of the Q promise ‘‘The very hairs of your head are all num- 
bered’’ (Lk. 12: 7=Mt. 10:30). In the Markan context of Lk. 21: 
18 the saying becomes almost inexplicable. One is forced to under- 
stand it in a transcendental or mystical sense. Restored to the Q 
context of 12: 6-J=Mt. 10: 29-33 it shines with true poetic beauty. 

It is apparent thus from the very start that the Q form and con- 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK 125 


text is the more original. As we proceed to compare the omissions 
and additions of Mark this becomes more unmistakable with every 
step. 7 | 

The prediction of Delivering up to Sanhedrins and Synagogues 
is supplemented in Mk. 13: 9b-10 by a specific reference to Citation 
before Governors and Kings and to the World-wide Proclamation 
of the Gospel, which Luke reproduces in 21:12b, 138 and Matthew 
in 10:18, but which is rightly wanting in Lk. 12:11 f. Per contra 
Mark has no use for the introductory words of the prophecy about 
Division in Households (Lk. 12:49-53=Mt. 10: 84-86), because he 
takes no interest in the general principle that the new religion must 
be expected to bring a sword even into the bosom of family life 
(cf. Lk. 2:34 f.), but only in Jesus’ having foretold the inhuman 
villainy of the delatores. Mark therefore omits the opening words of 
the saying (save for an incidental touch elsewhere, Mk. 10:38) and 
changes household enmity (put in appropriate language borrowed 
from Mic. 7:5 f.) into definite prediction of ‘‘delivering up to 
death.’’ Once more, in the form which they take from Mark (Mt. 
' 10: 21—Lk. 21:16) both Matthew and Luke reproduce this adapta- 
tion. The kinsfolk ‘‘ deliver unto death.’’ In the Q form we have the 
simple (and original) prediction that the Gospel will surely bring 
estrangement in families. The Markan form gives every indication 
of later adaptation to the specific known event, the work of the 
delatores. 

In the closing verse of this paragraph Mark adds a further 
reference to the fact that this persecution will be world-wide, and 
for the Name of Christ (a further glance at later conditions; cf. I 
Pt. 5:9) and an assurance based on the prophecy of Daniel that 
deliverance will come after endurance ‘‘to the End.’’ With this 
addition begin the characteristic importations from Daniel. Surely 
it is a striking fact, considering how largely the Little Apocalypse 
of Mark is based on the Great Apocalypse of Daniel, that not a 
single phrase from Daniel has left its impress on the Q eschatology 
of Lk. 12:1-13:9. The Special Source of Luke has unmistakable 
forecasts of the destruction of Jerusalem. From beginning to end 
it reads like one long vaticinium ex eventu. Its author laments over 
Israel and its unrepentant cities that knew not the time of their re- 
jected opportunity. His refrain is “‘If thou hadst known; if thou 
hadst known!’’ He goes to the limit of tact in reminding the suf- 
ferers that they had received forewarning through the word of 
Christ. But there is no trace whatever of any prediction of the com- 
ing of Antichrist, or of profanation of the temple. Mark’s use of 
@ material here seems clearly established. But certainly Mark did 


126 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


not get his prophecy of the Shiqqutz from the Special Source of 
Luke. 

Except for the two editorial touches in verses 9b-10 and 13 the 
whole of Mk. 13: 9-18 is pure Q material. The remainder, dominated 
though it is by motives traceable only to the Thessalonian Epistles 
and Daniel, does not lack a Q basis. This has already been pointed 
out as respects the inappropriate direction to flee from the house- 
top (Mk. 13:15 f.). In Lk. 21:21 this has been reduced to a form 
better adapted to the actual conditions, in accordance with the gen- 
eral ‘Lukan redaction. But in Lk. 17:31 we have the original Q 
logion in its proper connection, where nothing remains unintel- 
ligible ; because the saying is not a warning to flee, as Mark repre- 
sents it, but on the contrary a warning of the hopelessness of flight. 
The whole long discourse on the Coming of the Son of Man in Lk. 
17: 22-37, only part of which is reproduced in Mt. 24: 37-41, is a 
series of comparisons to show how the Coming cannot be calculated 
in advance nor escaped by flight. As the deluge caught the genera- 
tion of Noah unawares, and the fire from heaven overtook the men 
of Sodom, so attempts to flee from the wrath of God will be as futile © 
as attempts to escape the lightning which passes instantaneously 
from horizon to horizon. Hence while the verbal echo in Mk. 18: 21, 
reproducing the warning against the ery, ‘‘Lo, here (is the Christ) ; 
Lo, there,’’ is not far from. the sense of Lk. 17: 22 f.; and one may 
also see a general echo in Mk. 13: 32 of the teaching of this Q pas- 
sage, the principal extract in Mk. 13:15 f., is a decided perversion 
of the sense. Once more the motive seems to be to find a more defi- 
nite prediction of the situation as it actually took form in the crisis 
of 66-70. 

In presence of so many other indications that Mark is using the 
poetic representations of the Lukan Special Source for the purpose 
of finding definite prose predictions, we are justified in explaining 
the perplexing clause ‘‘flee unto the mountains’’ in verse 14, to- 
gether with the reference to the sufferings of mothers with young 
children in verse 17, by the underlying Q material. The Special 
Source of Luke is repeatedly reflected in Mark in borrowed expres- 
sions such as “‘leave not one stone upon another’’ (Lk. 19:44= 
Mk. 18:2). It will be found habitual with Mark in other passages, 
such as the Temptation Story, thus to eliminate discourse sections 
while retaining a descriptive phrase or two (cf. Mk. 1:12 f.; 8:33 
with Mt. 4:1-11=Lk. 4:1-11). We have noted in Mk. 10:38 a 
parallel case, and shall have occasion to notice others.* If now we 


3Cf. Mk. 10: 21 (‘‘treasure in heaven’’) with Mt. 6: 19=Lk. 12: 32. On 
Mk, 4:11 (=Mt. 11: 25=Lk, 10: 21) see below. 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK nels by | 


turn to the section of this Special Source in which Jesus on his 
way to the cross makes his last mournful utterance concerning the 
fate of Jerusalem we shall find the two expressions which best ex- 
plain the clauses ‘“‘Let them that are in Judea flee to the moun- 
tains,’’ and ‘‘ Woe to them that are with child and to them that give 
suck in those days.’’ The equivalent expressions in the Special 
Source are found in Lk. 23: 29 f.: 


The days are coming in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and 
the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck. Then shall 
they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. 


Translated into very bald prose this is a prediction that the in- 
habitants of Judea will in fact ‘‘flee to the mountains,’’ and that 
the sufferings of that time will bear with peculiar hardship on the 
mothers of young children. The tendency of Mark thus to translate 
oriental poetry into occidental prose has but too many examples. 

Having shown the composite character of Mark’s Doom-chapter, 
and (it is hoped) made some advance toward identifying the evan- 
gelic source from which Mark derives his really historical utter- 
ances of Jesus, we may turn next to the remainder, a Little Apoca- 
lypse, based on the Danielic prophecy of profanation of the temple 
as prelude to “‘the End.’’ We have already noted that this 
‘“prophecy’’ can only be accounted for in this Christian adaptation 
as a product of the crisis of the year 40. Parallel to it, if not a direct 
development from it, is the Pauline Little Apocalypse presented 
in the year 50 as ‘‘a word of the Lord’’ in the Thessalonian Epistles, 
elsewhere as a ‘‘mystery’’ or ‘‘revelation’’ (I Cor. 15:51). This 
eschatology in the Pauline form has been adapted to the changed 
circumstances under Claudius in two respects: (1) Postponement ; 
by the supplement of the ‘‘Restrainer’’; (2) personalization, by the 
substitution of an incarnation of Beliar as “‘ Antichrist’’ in place of 
the material Shiqqutz previously expected as a profanation of the 
temple. Let us next return to the Doom-chapter of Mark. Removing 
its @ elements we endeavor to see how far the remainder can be 
accounted for as an attempt of Mark to weave in the Little Apoca- 
lypse with equal justice to Daniel on the one hand, and such modi- 
fications on the other as had been required by events as they trans- 
pired, including the possibility that the two important steps above 
defined had already been taken in the Thessalonian eschatology. 
Our parallel columns in the present case will include on the one 
side this ‘‘remainder’’ of Mark 13: 3-27, on the other (by reference 
only) the parallels from apocalyptic writers (especially Daniel) 
‘and the Pauline eschatology. 


128 


: Mk. 13: 3-27. 

3 And as he was sitting on the 
mount of Olives over against the 
temple, Peter and James and John 
and Andrew asked him privately, 
4 Tell us, when shall these things 
(the overthrow of the temple) be? 
and what shall be the sign when 
these things are all about to be ac- 
complished? 5 And Jesus began to 
say unto them, Take heed that no 
man lead you astray. 6 Many will 
come in my name saying I am he; 
and shall lead many astray. 

7 And when ye shall hear of 
- wars and rumors of wars, be not 
roused to alarm: These things must 
needs come to pass; but the End is 
not yet. 8 For nation shall rise 
against nation, and kingdom against 
kingdom; there shall be earthquakes 
in divers places; there shall be fam- 
ines: these things are the beginning 
of travail. 

. 14 But when ye see the 
abomination that maketh desolate 
taking his stand where he ought not 
(let him that readeth understand), 
... 18 pray that it happened not in 
winter. 19 For those days shall be 
tribulation, such as there hath not 
been the like from the beginning of 
the creation which God created until 
now, and never shall be. 

20 And except the Lord had 
shortened the days, no flesh would 
have been saved; but for the elect’s 
sake whom he chose, he shortened 
the days. 

21 And then if any man shall say 
unto you, Lo, here is the Christ; or, 
Lo, there [cf. Lk. 17: 21-23]; be- 
lieve it not: 22 for there shall arise 
false Christs and false prophets, 
and shall show signs and wonders, 
that they may lead astray, if pos- 
sible, the elect. 23 But take ye heed: 


THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Paul and Apocalypse. 
(Lk. 19: 37, 41 ff.) 


The great Apostasy (Dan. 11: 
30b, 34b). The “working of error 
to believe a le”=II Thess. 2: 1-3, 
9-11. 


“Be not roused to alarm.” The 
Coming is not immediate. II Thess. 
ea Nae 


(Issi3 8.12) 

The Profanation. ‘Dan. 9: 24-27; 
L331; 36-39 3:82 hess 
4, 8 ff. 

(Dan. 9: 22 ff.) 


The Great Tribulation. 
(Dan. 12:1). I Thess. 3: 4. 


The Shortening of the days. An 
apocalyptic trait seemingly based 
on Is. 28:22. It appears in the 
Enoch fragment Barn. iv. 3; and 
similar doctrine in Ap. Bar. xx. 1 f., 
hiv. 1; Ixxxi. 1, 6=HRom. 9:28. 


The Lying wonders. II Thess. 2: 
9-12. Cf. Teaching of the Twelve, 
xvi. 4. 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK 129 


behold, I have told you all things 
beforehand. 

24 But in those days, after that The Coming of the Son of Man 
tribulation, the sun shall be dark- and Gathering of the Elect. I Thess. 
ened and the moon shall not giveher 1:10; 4:16f. II Thess. 1: 7-10; 
light, 25 and the stars shall be fall- 2:1. I Cor. 15:51 f. Eph. 6:12. 
ing from heaven, and the powers (Is. 13:10; 34: 4.) 
that are in the heavens shall be 
shaken. 26 And then shall they see - 
the Son of Man coming in clouds 
with great power and glory. 27 And Dan. 7:13 (Teaching xvi. 7). 
then shall he send forth the angels, 
and shall gather together his elect 
from the four winds, from the utter- 
most part of the earth to the utter- Zech. 14:5 (Teaching ix. 4; xvi. 
most part of the heaven. 6). 


This section of Mark is properly named The Little Apocalypse. 

Its character is unmistakable. On the other hand if we keep in mind 
two known factors (a) the ‘‘word of the Lord’’ or ‘‘mystery’’ pre- 

supposed in references of Paul; (b) Paul’s own practical applica- 
tion of the teaching, it will be clear that theories of a special docu- 
ment, a ‘‘prophecy’’ given currency immediately before the siege 
of Jerusalem, a leaflet, brochure, or pamphlet circulated by itself 
in Christian circles leading to the flight to Pella, are needless. 
Obviously the ‘‘prophecy’’ is fundamentally an interpretation of 
apocalyptic Scripture, more especially Daniel. Obviously it has 
been re-compared with Daniel. What Matthew has done for Mark 
in assimilating the prediction to the precise (or almost precise) 
words ‘‘spoken by Daniel the prophet’’ had been already begun 
by Mark himself. Paul speaks of ‘‘the manifestation of the Man of 
Sin’’ or ‘‘the Lawless One.’’ Mark reverts to Daniel (though with- 
out mentioning the name) and speaks of ‘‘the abomination that 
maketh desolate.’’ Also on the side of Paul and primitive Christian 
eschatology (as reflected for example in the Teaching) there has 
been an adjustment to the new situation under Claudius by forma- 
tion of an Antichrist doctrine instead of a material Shiqqutz. 
Whether adjustment to the course of events is traceable also on the 
side of Mark we shall enquire presently. 

Three things make it practically certain that the Markan form 
of the apocalypse has been affected by the Pauline. (1) The motive. 
The object for which it is introduced is not (as usual with apocalyp- 
tic writers) to kindle eschatological enthusiasm, but to repress it. 
The great fear of Mark is that the Church may be swept off its feet 
by the cry ‘‘Lo, here is the Christ.’’ This fanatical apocalypticism 


130 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


he expects (or knows) as an immediate sequel to the disasters of 
66-70. He identifies it with the ‘‘ working of error’’ to be expected 
according to II Thess. 2: 9-12, and repeatedly begs his readers not 
to be carried away by it, using the same quite unusual expression 
employed in II Thess. 1: 2, ‘‘to be roused to alarm’’ (@poetcGar). 

(2) The ‘‘personification or personalizing’’ of the agency of the 

profanation. While for the sake of Scripture fulfilment Mark re- 
verts to the Danielic phrase ‘‘abomination that maketh desolate’’ 
he does not relinquish the Pauline adaptation, but retains the Anti- 
christ doctrine as the real sense of the Scripture. The Shiqqutz, 
according to Mark, will not be a material object but a ‘“‘manifesta- 
tion of the Man of Sin’’ or ‘‘of Lawlessness.’’ To make sure that 
the sense given to the Scripture shall be this (to his mind) correct 
interpretation, he interjects the clause ‘‘Let him that readeth [the 
Scripture] understand’’ (cf. Dan. 9:23). He also takes pains to 
use the masculine form of the participle, a change from the Danielic 
terms whose significance is well expressed by Swete (Comm. ad 
loc. ):: 
A constructio ad sensum; the B5édvyua is personified, or regarded as per- 
sonal: ‘when ye see . . . him standing where he ought not’; cf. II Thess. 
2:6 f. rd xaréxov . . . dxaréxwv. Matthew prefers éorés, and interprets é7ov 
ov det as év rérw 4yly—a phrase which has confirmed the impression, based 
on I Mace. 1: 54, that the sign must be sought within the sacred precinct. 
But his (Matthew’s) anarthrous réros dys is perhaps not equivalent to 6 4. 
téros (II Mace. 8:17; Acts 6:13) or 6 réros (Jno. 11:48), or 6 7. ofros 
(Acts 21:28). All Palestine, but especially Jerusalem (7 dyla 74, 4 ayla 
mons, I] Mace. 1:7; 3:1) was to a Jew holy ground, where the Gentile had 
no right to be. 


Swete is doubtless correct in defining what Mark wishes to be taken 
as the sense of the prophecy. By a strained interpretation he would 
have the sense taken to be ‘‘ The Man of the desolating profanation 
will take his stand somewhere in Palestine or Jerusalem.’’ It is 
certain, however, that if ‘‘he that readeth’’ Daniel did ‘‘under- 
stand’’ the prophet in this sense he would be perverting the real 
meaning. What that meaning was Matthew sees clearly, as indeed 
was inevitable for a ‘‘seribe well instructed.’’? Mark’s strained in- 
terpretation is due to his inability to devise one more literal (Mat- 
thew, as we have seen, obtains one by using ‘‘the anarthrous rozos 
dys ’’). But we have found this difficulty already encountered by 
Paul, and rectified to the Thessalonians by exactly this method. 
Paul also ‘‘ personifies, or regards the /deAvyya as personal.”’ 

(3) The curious feature of the Shortening of the Days. With 
Paul as with other adherents of the Danielic expectation the caleula- 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK 131 


tion of the time was important. The ‘‘Restrainer’’ who temporarily 
holds back the Man of Sin does so “‘in order that he may be mani- 
fested in his own time’’ (II Thess. 2:6). In Rom. 9: 28 Paul quotes 
Is. 28:22 LXX. Only mistranslation of the Hebrew enabled the 
LXX to obtain the sense ‘‘For the Lord in his goodness will make a 
reckoning, accomplishing and abridging it, an abridged reckoning 
will the Lord make in the whole earth” (Adyov yap cw TeAGyv Kai cvvTép- 
vov ev duxaoowny, OTL Adyov GuvTETUNMEVOV TrOLnTEL KYpLOS ev TH OiKOUpLEVN GAY). 
Some traces of this doctrine appear in later Jewish and Christian 
apocalypse, but the simplest explanation of its appearance in Mk. 
13: 20 is influence from Paul.* 

In addition to this evidence of influence from Paul the Markan 
form of the Little Apocalypse gives evidence of adaptation to the 
events of the years 66-70. As we have just seen, the evangelist im- 
poses a strained interpretation on the Danielic prophecy of the 
Shiqqutz. He had indeed the example of Paul for thus ‘personaliz- 
ing.’ But he did not have in Paul any precedent for the attempt 
to help the reader to understand Scripture in a way which would 
square Daniel with the event. The effort of Mk. 13:14 is to obtain 
a justifying exegesis of Dan. 11:31 under circumstances wherein 
a literal fulfilment was no longer possible. Paul in 50 a.p. has no 
difficulty in retaining the literal sense of a manifestation ‘“‘in the 
temple of God.’’ For some reason Mark finds it necessary to substi- 
tute for this perfectly definite location the vague and ambiguous 
clause ‘‘where he ought not.’’? Matthew naturally finds this very 
unsatisfactory and substitutes ‘‘in a holy place.’’ But Mark’s help- 
lessness is apparent. In the words of MeNeile ‘‘the reference is 
vague and eryptic.’’ The destruction of the temple in 70 will ex- 
plain both Mark’s correction, and Matthew’s correction of the cor- 
rection. Mark is forced to be ‘‘vague and cryptic.’’ After the dis- 
appearance of ‘‘the temple of God’’ he that read Daniel would 
need to “‘understand’’ in some peculiar way. Matthew removes the 
difficulty by substituting ‘‘a holy place’’ “‘for the holy place.’’ 

Another indication of date considerably later than 70 is Mark’s 
attempt to make the fanatical apocalypticism of the period im- 
mediately succeeding the catastrophe a fulfilment of the predicted 
“‘leading astray’’ (II Thess. 2:9 f.). There are indeed few move- 
ments in the Church which have not been identified by their op- 
ponents at one time or another with ‘‘the Antichrist.’’ In this 
particular instance we may well believe there was provocation in 
extravagant apocalyptic expectations cherished by Christians of 


4 See the article ‘‘ Notes on Mark’’ in Journal of Biblical Literature. XLII 
(1923), pp. 137-149. 


132 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Jewish birth. The contents of our own Revelation of John show 
the type of ‘‘prophecy’’ prevalent in the Church not far from these 
times. Our evangelist insists that no mere earthly events shall be 
taken for signs of the Coming. Only when the ‘‘powers in the 
heavens’’ are shaken will it be time to look for the real intervention 
of God. This is good Pauline doctrine (Rom. 8:38 f.; Eph. 6:12), 
but the time when it was most required was during what Schirer 
ealls ‘the after-vibrations of the great revolution.’’ 

Most important of all as an indication of date subsequent to the 
events of 66-70 is the interweaving of prophecies of Jesus concern- 
ing the fate of Jerusalem and the temple with apocalyptic forecasts 
of the Second Coming. The Little Apocalypse underlying the Thes- 
salonian Epistles, built as it is on Daniel’s visions of a profanation 
of the temple, is religious rather than political. It is not concerned 
with the fate of Jerusalem. It even takes for granted that ‘‘the 
temple of God’’ will be the scene of the manifestation of the Man 
of Sin and his bringing to nought by the counter-manifestation of 
Jesus as heavenly Lord. Neither Paul nor his ‘‘prophet’’ prede- 
cessor shows any trace of expectation of the siege and overthrow of 
Jerusalem. Per contra the Special Source of Luke apparently em- 
ployed by Mark has the clearest predictions by Jesus of the siege 
and overthrow of Jerusalem, but no suggestion whatever of a con- 
nection between these political disasters and the end of the world. 
The Special Source has its own warnings against attempts to calcu- 
late the time of the Coming and treating the inward kingdom of God 
as if it were something to ‘‘come by observation’’ (Lk. 17: 20 f.). 
It depicts the time of the End in colors borrowed from the story 
of Noah’s Flood and the Destruction of Sodom (Lk. 17: 22-87). 
All this is for the very purpose of dissociating events belonging to 
the spiritual sphere from such as belong to the realm of political 
and military history. As to when the End is to come Jesus urges 
only to watchfulness because it is impossible to foresee it. As to 
where, he gives only the proverb, ‘‘Vultures gather wherever the 
earrion lies’’. (Lk. 17:37). Neither in this author’s predictions of 
the overthrow of the city, so repeatedly placed in Jesus’ mouth 
(Lk. 12: 54-59; 18: 1-9; 19: 41-44; 23: 27-31), nor in his warnings 
of the Coming of the Son of Man (Uk. 12: 35-53; 13 : 23-30; 17: 20- 
37; 18: 1-8) is there the faintest trace of Danielic apocalypse, the 
temple-desecration, or the Antichrist doctrine. Except for the at- 
tenuated remnant derived from Mark in Luke’s recast of the Doom- 
chapter (Lk. 21—Mk. 13) the Book of Daniel might as well not 
have been written so far as Luke is concerned. 

What, then, is the explanation of the combination by Mark in 


THE DOOM-CHAPTER IN MARK 133 


his Doom-chapter of predictions of the Great Tribulation on ‘‘those 
that are in Judea’’ derived from the descriptions of the overthrow 
of Jerusalem in the Special Source, with predictions of the End of 
the world partly derived from the same source but cemented to the 
overthrow passages by means of the Shiqqutz prophecy of Daniel? 
Can there be any other explanation than that Mark finds it needful 
to explain in just what relation these disasters to Judea and Jeru- 
salem really stand to the final catastrophe? In point of fact we find 
his whole composite discourse made up as a private explanation of 
the saying on the Overthrow of the Temple. This explanation aims 
to show that while the political disaster is not to be regarded as the 
immediate precursor of the End, it does belong among the signs 
of its coming. Why, indeed, should the prophecy of Daniel be 
brought in at all, if not because he that, ‘‘understands’’ may find 
in it a confirmation of his Christian hopes, and an assurance that 
“‘after that tribulation’’ the real dénouement will truly come? 
Our study of this Markan agglutinated discourse reveals certain 
factors which throw light upon the date. Superficial reasoning finds 
it easy to compare Mark with Luke and infer a date antecedent to 
the catastrophe from the (relative) absence of indication that Jeru- 
salem had already fallen. More careful scrutiny compels just the 
reverse. Wellhausen’s assertion that Mark looks back upon the over- 
throw as something already past (bereits vergangen) is correct, 
though peremptory. Mark presupposes the Little Apocalypse known 
to Paul. He also shows acquaintance with Paul’s own adaptation of 
the ‘‘prophecy’’ by a ‘‘personalized’’ Man of Sin instead of the 
material Shiqqutz, and he shows the perplexity of an interpreter 
obliged to fit the prediction of Daniel long attached to ‘‘the temple 
of God’’ to a situation where this building no longer exists. All 
these are inferences which source-analysis of the Doom-chapter 
makes it very difficult to avoid, and in addition we are carried still 
further down in date by the relation which appears to exist be- 
tween Mark and the Special Source of Luke. For this source the 
Little Apocalypse does not exist. It completely ignores the profana- 
tion prophecy of Daniel. On the other hand it is so clear and 
specific in the predictions of the overthrow of Jerusalem and the 
temple, describing even details of the siege, that one can hardly 
avoid the impression that experience of the events themselves has 
at least stimulated the writer’s memory and led to a selection and 
coloration of the material with a view to the vindication of Jesus’ 
cause. Had all this been part of the common inheritance of Jesus’ 
teaching one is forced to ask how it could have failed to find some 
expression in combination with, or alongside of, the eschatology 


134 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


set forth in the Little Apocalypse. It is very difficult to imagine the 
Special Source of Luke taking the form it displays until after the 
ereat catastrophe ; for this Special Source of Luke is the one writing 
of Christian antiquity in which there can really be found that re- 
flection of the events of 66-70 in Palestine which elsewhere seems 
so singularly wanting. The Special Source of Luke appears to be 
later (though only slightly later) than 70 a.p. But it is almost im- 
possible to reverse the literary relation between this source and 
Mark. Mark has employed it. Mark, therefore, must be later still. 
Such are the conclusions to which we are led by comparison of 
the Doom-chapter of Mark with all its parallels. Others will doubt- 
less judge the evidence differently. It remains to be seen whether 
the conclusion thus far attained will find confirmation or the re- 
verse in other fields. | 


jreratd ned bo UB! 


EVIDENCE FROM ARRANGEMENT OF 
MATERIAL 





CHAPTER XII 
THE DISCOURSES 


In several particulars we have found it necessary to anticipate to 
some extent results which require further elucidation before full 
confidence can be expected. Source-analysis of the Doom-chapter 
involved an enquiry into the habitual methods of Mark in other 
agglutinated discourses, and into his relation to the Q material. A 
study of his eschatology involved unavoidably a comparison with the 
Pauline. Both these are larger questions which cannot be settled by 
reference to a single chapter of the Gospel. 

So far as they go the results attained in our study of the Eschato- 
logical Discourse may be sufficient to frame a working hypothesis, 
and as such have been set down in definite form. The apocalyptic 
viewpoint of Mark appears to have been determined partly by a 
““prophecy’’ of the year 40 accepted widely as a ‘‘word of the 
Lord,’’ partly by utterances of Jesus drawn from the Special 
Source of Luke. The former factor is affected by the Antichrist 
doctrine, by which the original Little Apocalypse of 40 a.p. has 
already been modified in Thessalonians to meet the changed condi- 
tions under Claudius and Nero (50-68). The Special Source of Luke 
is later than 70. Pauline influences would imply a date later than 
the Epistles. Our Gospel seems to involve both. Mark has further 
evidences of a date later than 70 in the combination effected be- 
tween two factors: (a) Special Source logia, (b) Antichrist apoca- 
lypse. Use of these sources is in itself a proof of later date, and in 
addition the attempt to claim the events of 66-70 as partial fulfil- 
ments shows an author who looks back upon these. Mark gives 
evidence of this later date in his strained interpretation of Daniel, 
particularly as regards the place where the manifestation of the 
Man of Sin is to occur (‘‘where he ought not’’). 

So far as these results carry us (and they are based upon that 
portion of the Gospel which has always and justly been regarded 
as giving the clearest evidences) they call for a date not earlier than 
ca. 80 A.D. Provisionally accepting this we must now give further 
attention to the two larger questions of (a) Composition, (b) Paul- 
ine influence, which in the nature of the case cannot be settled by 
reference to one chapter only of the Gospel. 


138 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


In an earlier work entitled Beginnings of Gospel Story (Yale 
University Press, 1909) the writer attempted to do for the inter- 
pretation of the Gospel of Mark as a whole what must here be at- 
tempted with more special application to the particular question of 
date. In the volume referred to the reader will find in the aggregate 
a large body of evidence showing the falsity of the prevailing idea 
(probably based on later forms of the Papias tradition) that this 
Gospel has none of the usual history of development by gradual 
accretion. Of course the process of stratification has been carried 
further in the dependent Gospels of Matthew and Luke; but it is 
far from the truth to imagine that Mark has no traces of accretion. 
This Gospel is anything but the product of off-hand composition, a 
literary work ‘aus eomem Guss.’ Nor can it be the product of oral | 
dictation. More distinctly even than in the later, more polished, 
Gospels can the critic here observe the marks of piecing together of 
older written material. 

Most of this material, if not all, can be proved to have been trans- 
lated from the Aramaic. The general outline and structure, while 
abundantly justifying the Elder’s criticism of lack of ‘‘order,”’ 
in the sense that it furnishes neither a chronological rags such as 
Luke attempts, nor a logical and practical rdéis such as Matthew’s, 
are carefully planned, and will richly reward a painstaking analy- 
sis. Papias will be found correct in regarding homiletical edifica- 
tion as a main factor. But the evangelist’s own purpose, distinct 
from that of the mere preacher, has also entered in. For example, 
it is not conceivable that the evangelist was ignorant of those im- 
portant elements of the teaching of Jesus which he frequently re- 
fers to (4:2, 33; 6:6, 34; 8:31; 10:1, etc.), but does not give in 
extenso. It is equally inconceivable (at least for scholars conscious 
of the conditions of the time) that our evangelist was tacitly refer- 
ring his readers to other Gospels. Undoubtedly written sources were 
available. Luke refers to “‘many’’ such, and we have reason to 
believe that at least one of these duyyoes employed by Luke has 
served Mark also in certain matters of detail at least. But the re- 
quirements of the primitive Church would not have been met by a 
partial gospel. The exclusions of Mark are deliberate. He has exer- 
cised a selective choice in his material, preferring that which ap- 
peals to the eye as compared with what was addressed to the ear. 
But his reason for this cannot have been merely literary. His pur- 
pose was nothing less than a declaration to the reader of the Way 
of Eternal Life as understood by Christians. If, then, we find 
greater emphasis on “‘things done’’ rather than “things spoken”’ 
in this Gospel we are entitled to conclude that the evangelist con- 


THE DISCOURSES 139 


ceived ‘‘the gospel’’ in these terms. Now Mark has only one parallel 
in the primitive age for such a conception, a parallel which goes 
far beyond it. Paul’s example in treating ‘‘the gospel’’ as con- 
cerned primarily with the work of God in Christ is carried to an 
extent which no later evangelist would dare to emulate; hence the 
extent to which Mark has carried this relative neglect of the teach- 
ing of Jesus may be reckoned in a broad sense among the evidences 
of ‘‘influence from Paul.’’ The paucity of teaching material, reck- 
oned as a defect by later evangelists, is really an evidence for the 
early date of Mark. 

But we are not now concerned with influences from Paul, which 
must in due season receive separate consideration. We are con- 
cerned with the structure and composition of the Gospel, including 
the selection and use of sources, and the traces of superimposition 
of successive strata, or readjustment of the story. For in refuting 
the claim that the Eschatological Discourse of Mk. 13 represents in 
substantially its present form the writing of Mark himself in the 
year 40 we have already advanced the opinion that the Markan 
Doom-chapter is an agglutination composed of several factors, all 
of which have undergone one or more processes of adaptation and 
readjustment. The evidences adduced for the particular case of the 
Doom-chapter should not be left to stand alone. We should examine 
first of all the other Discourses of similar composition throughout 
the Gospel. In a subsequent chapter the narrative portions may be 
likewise examined for clews to the sources and principles of arrange- 
ment and adaptation. 

1. Next to the Eschatological Discourse, whether as regards com- 


pass or apparent importance to the evangelist, is the group of. 
parables by means of which he depicts Jesus in 4: 1-34 as convey-. 
ing to the inner group of his disciples ‘‘the mystery of the kingdom 


of God,’’ while to ‘‘those that are without’’ all things are hidden 
under a veil of enigma. Outside of this significant section the 
reader obtains no account whatever of what the disciples were 
actually sent to teach. Their healing activity (the precedent for 
similar activities practiced in the evangelist’s own time) is ex- 
plained and justified by the series of Mighty works of Faith (4: 35- 
6:6) which follows immediately after the Parables of the King- 
dom, and is itself immediately followed by the Sending of the 
Twelve to Preach and to Heal (6: 7-13). We cannot be mistaking 
the purpose of this arrangement and selection of material when we 
take the Chapter of Parables to be the evangelist’s account of how 
the Twelve, chosen in 3: 13-19, set apart, together with a subordinate 


140 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


group of obedient hearers, in 3: 20-35," are now made ‘‘trustees of 
the message’’ (ef: Tit. 1:2 £.; 1 Tim, 1st, ete.): 

Reasons have been given elsewhere? for the belief that in the 
order of the source employed the parables stood in the following 
sequence: (1) Mustard Seed; (2) Leaven (omitted by Mark) ; (3) 
Patient Husbandman; (4) Sower. The Interpretation (4: 10-20) 
also followed in the source, except for verses 11 f. which are inter- 
jected by Mark in the interest of his own conception of Jesus’ reason 
for adopting an enigmatic (!) method of teaching. The transposi- 
tion of parables (1) and (3) to the close was intended to bring into 
greater prominence the contrast between worthy and unworthy 
hearers set forth in parable (4), but had among other infelicitous 
results the effect of making the retirement with the inner circle for 
private instruction regarding ‘‘all the parables’’ (ver. 13) take 
place in the middle of the discourse, so that Jesus appears to with- 
draw with the Twelve into privacy while the multitude patiently 
wait on the shore, or else disperse and reassemble (! ). 

It is commonly admitted among critics that the parables, or at 
least that of the Mustard Seed, have been derived by Mark from Q. 
At all events the implication of verse 33 is plain that he has knowl- 
edge of others similar. But this is by no means the only use Mark 
has made in this connection of Q material. Except for Wellhausen, 
who strangely argues for priority on the side of Mark (! ), critics 
also ascribe the parenthetic reference to the Blasphemy of the 
Seribes (3: 22-30) by quite general consent to the same source. In 
addition a series of brief logia loosely thrown together, which ap- 
pear in various connections of Q, are appended at the close of the 
Interpretation (4: 21-25), in other words at what would be, but for 
the transposition effected by Mark, the end of the whole agglutina- 
tion. Last and most significant of all, the verse which explains the 
entire arrangement of this section of the Gospel, together with the, 
singular idea that the teaching in parables was a ‘‘hiding of the} 
mystery of the Kingdom’’ from outsiders, is no mere free composi-) 
tion of Mark’s own, as sometimes imagined, but a logion well at-, 
tested in independent reports which Mark adapts to his purpose. It 
is this adaptation, and the source whence the logion appears to be 


1It belongs to the method of composition and use of sources which we are 
studying to observe that Mk. 3: 22-30 is interjected in a parenthetic manner 
into the context. The phenomenon is constant in Mark, and distinctly suggests 
literary rather than oral supplementation, particularly as the material thus 
interjected appears in fuller and more authentic form in Q (Mt. 12: 24-32—Lk. 
11: 14-23; 12: 10). For details see Beginnings of Gospel Story, ad loe. 

2See the Commentary, ad loc., and ‘‘Parable and its Adaptation in the 
Gospels’’ in Hibbert Journal, XXI., 1 (Oct., 1922), pp. 127-140. 


THE DISCOURSES 141 


derived, which will be found especially instructive in our present 
enquiry. 

All four members of the original group of Kingdom parables, 

Mustard Seed, Leaven, Patient Husbandman, and Sower, have a 
common object. They encourage faith in the nearness of the King- 
dom in spite of appearances, by appeal to instances in nature of 
God’s unseen mode of working. Though insignificant as the mustard 
seed, unperceived as the working of leaven, unhastening as the 
ripening of harvests, super-abounding as the rich return of crops 
outweighing incidental loss, the dynamic of God is in the world 
making the little great, permeating the mass, justifying faith, 
crowning labor and hope. This is Jesus’ ‘‘gospel of the kingdom’’ 
as it appears in other Q material such as the Answer to John (Mt. 
11: 2-6=Lk. 7: 18-23). The conception differs fundamentally from 
the apocalyptic. It does not deny a catastrophic dénouement, but 
lays emphasis on a present hidden ‘‘sovereignty of God’’ whose 
‘“manifestation’’ belongs to the unknown future (cf. Lk. 17: 20 f.). 
In the new arrangement of Mark, with the narrative introduction 
(3: 20-385) and the interjected application (4:11f.), the primary 
interest becomes eschatological. 
Again it was certainly not the purpose of Jesus in using the 
\parabolic method to obscure, but to illuminate. Neither was there 
in the original grouping any suggestion of anti-Jewish polemic 
such as tinges the whole group when thus introduced, transposed 
in order, and supplemented. The saying on Spiritual Kindred (38: 
31-35) now takes on a polemic tone. Jesus’ earthly kin are ‘‘out- 
siders’’ from whom ‘‘the mystery of the kingdom’’ must be hid. 
The adaptation is secondary, Markan, anti-Jewish. What is more 
to our purpose, it is superimposed, and that not upon the original 
form, but upon a form already secondary and adapted. 

For the interpretation attached to the group as a whole in verses 
10, 13-20 is complete without verses 11 f. The general connection 
is far better than if the enquirers receive two inconsistent replies 
to their question through the inserted verses. But even this more 
original form of the Interpretation in verses 10, 13-20 is not 
primary. It does not give the meaning really intended by the 
parable of the Sower, but an allegorizing application intended to 
rebuke various classes of heedless hearers,’ a true pulpit castiga- 
tion, which while wholly innocent of the anti-Jewish bent of Mark 
betrays its relatively late date by referring not only to ‘‘riches’’ as 
an impediment to fruitful hearing (cf. Jas. 2:1-7), but even to 


3 Cf. Philo on audiences in the \|Movoaiov, de congressu eruditionis gratia, 
13, Mangey. 


142 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


‘‘nersecutions,’’ which were quite beyond the horizon at the time of 
Jesus’ utterance. 

Thus the inserted two verses declaring that the reason for the’ 
use of parables was an intention to ‘‘hide the mystery of the king- 
dom,’’ so that the bitter prophecy of Isaiah against the people deaf i 
and blind and hardened against his message might be fulfilled (11, 
12), belong not to a second stratum of the tradition but to a third.! 
And if we ask whence Mark derives this curious logion on the hiding 
of the mystery of the kingdom from all but the true household of 
faith, it will be discovered: to be no recent product, but even pre- 
christian in its earliest forms. For Theodotion’s rendering of Is. 
24:16 was ‘‘My mystery is for me and for those who are mine’’ 
(To pvornpidv pov éuot Kat rots éuots), which Jewish legend reproduces | 
in Sanhedrin, 94:1 in the form: ‘‘A bath qol resounded saying, 
‘My secret is mine, my secret is mine.’ The prophet answered ; ‘How 
long?’ ’’ ete., as in Is. 24:17. In Jewish application the warning not 
to betray the divine revelation to the unworthy has reference to the 
Torah (cf. Mt. 7:6). In the Wisdom literature it refers to divine 
instruction given to her ‘‘children,’’ a form in which it underlies 
both the Q logion Mt. 11: 25-27=Lk. 10: 21f. and the outburst of 
Paul in I Cor. 1:18-3:1. In Odes of Solomon VIII. 11 it returns 
as ‘‘Keep my mystery that ye may be kept by it.’’ Finally it dies 
away in later Christian apocrypha, as in ‘‘a certain gospel’’ cited 
by Clement (Strom. V, x. 69): “‘My mystery is for me and for the 
sons of my household,’’ and the Clementina, where Peter recalls 
(Hom. XTX: 20): ‘‘Our Lord enjoined upon us: ‘Keep my mys- 
teries for me and for the sons of my household.’ For this reason he 
explained privately to his own disciples the mysteries of the king- 
dom of heaven.’’ 

A logion of such long-continued and wide circulation need not 
necessarily have been derived by Mark from Q; but since the entire 
context, beginning with the introductory incident of the Mother 
and Brethren (3: 20-35), is filled with Q extracts it would clearly 
be contrary to all critical principles to conjecture a separate source 
for this logion on the Hiding of the Mystery; for it appears in 
more authentic and original form in Mt. 11: 25-30=Lk. 10: 21 f. 
In the Lukan context it even appears associated (as here) with an 
intimation to the Twelve that it is to them that the revelation is 
confided (Lk. 10:23 f.). The logion assumes indeed a wide differ- 
ence in form and mode of application in its Markan setting. But 
this is characteristic. As we have already observed in the Doom- 
chapter, and shall have further occasion to observe, Mark’s habitual 
method of employment has exactly this character. His interest is 


THE DISCOURSES 143 


concrete and practical. Poetry is turned to prose. He borrows so 
much as serves his immediate apologetic or pragmatic purpose, 
often passing over the essence of the teaching.* 

We cannot leave this keystone of the Discourse in Parables with- 
out a word concerning the associated quotation from Is. 6:9 which‘ 
serves as a pointer to indicate how the doctrine of the Hiding of | 
the Mystery should (in Mark’s view) be apphed. For this employ- ) 

/ ment by Mark has become a classic proof-text for every later | 
/ _evangelist to further improve and elaborate (cf. Mt. 13: 13;° Uk. 
~ 8:10; Acts 28:26f.; Jn. 12:39 f.). As before, some anticipation 

of our enquiry into Pauline influence will be involved, but this is 
unavoidable if we would appreciate Mark’s standpoint and mode of 
composition. 

It is in his great theodicy of Rom. 9-11 explaining Israel’s re- 
jection of the Gospel as providential, that Paul introduces as the 
cardinal feature of his apologetic the doctrine of the “‘hardening”’ 
of Israel, showing at length by citations from the prophets, espe- 
cially Isaiah, that this strange providence was in accordance with 
the determinate foreknowledge and counsel of God, for (Rom. 11: 
Tope 


That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election 
obtained it, and the rest were hardened: according as it is written, “God 
gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that 
they should not hear, unto this very day.” 


It is true that Paul combines in this quotation elements from two 
Isaian complaints against the unbelief of Israel (Is. 29:10 and 
6:9), which our evangelist apples separately (Mk. 4:12 and 7: 
6 f.). But the doctrine of the ‘‘hardening’’ (zwpecs) of Israel, ex- 
tending even to Jesus’ own disciples, is a dominant theme of Mark, 
persisting throughout the Gospel. What appears in Mk. 4:11 f. is 
simply a combination of this distinctively Pauline doctrine with 
another doctrine no less characteristically Pauline, the Hiding of 
the Mystery (I Cor. 2:7; Rom. 16:25 f.; Eph. 3: 3-5). To Mark’s 
view this divine dispensation is particularly manifest in the con- 
veying of ‘‘the mystery of the kingdom of God”’ to the inner circle 
in Galilee (who represent the unborn Church) by means of the 


4 For similar instances see below on Mk. 9: 37b==Lk. 10: 16 and Mk. 9: 50= 
Mt. 5: 13=Lk. 14: 34f. 

5 The repetition of the quotation in fuller form in the next two verses (Mt. 
13:14, 15) is an early interpolation borrowed from Acts 28: 26. It is not an 
authentic element of the text of Matthew, but serves to show the polemic interest 
concentrated on this proof-text. 


144 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


parables, while it remains ‘‘hid’’ from ‘‘those who are without.’’ 
His combination of the two doctrines is effected, precisely as in the 
ease of the Eschatological Discourse, on the basis of Q logia ad- 
justed to the Pauline viewpoint as Mark understands it. 

Whether the whole group of Q logia attached in loose agglutina- 
tion in verses 21-24 come from the same editorial hand as the in- 
sertion of the Blasphemy of the Scribes (3: 22-30) and the anti- 
Jewish ‘keystone’ (4:11 f.), and belong all to the same period, or 
whether they represent successive supplements by various hands, 
need not here concern us. The essential factors of the Parable Dis- 
course are now apparent. We have some insight into the question 
how, and why, and whence it was compiled. So far as source analy- 
sis is competent to express a Judgment it can only confirm that pro- . 
nounced upon the Eschatological Discourse: The compilation of 
Mk. 4: 1-34 is at several removes from primitive tradition. It pre- 
supposes both @ and Paul. 

2. An agglutinated discourse which from its extent and setting 
had manifest importance to Mark (though the connection often 
seems like a mere assonance of unrelated terms) is introduced in 
Mk. 9: 33-50 by a version of the incident of the Child in the Midst 
(with verses 33-37, cf. 10: 13-16, 41-45). In this case we meet such 
further evidence of late date as may be afforded by the literary 
phenomenon of duplication. For there is clear proof that the two 
Markan anecdotes of the Child in the Midst do not represent two 
separate occurrences. The fact that they are parallel versions of the 
same story appears from the rebuke of the Twelve in 9:37 for not 
‘‘receiving’’ such little ones; whereas it is only in the other version 
that they have forbidden the children to be brought (10:13). Con- 
versely it is in the second version (10:15) that Jesus commends the 
humility of the little child (without apparent occasion) ; whereas 
it is in the first (9:34) that the occasion had really been given. 
Other duplications such as that of the two versions of the Break- 
ing of Bread (6: 380-52—8:1-10) make the conclusion a reasonable 
one that Mark is here combining sources. As already noted the 
Gospel of Mark is certainly a product of literary compilation. But 
the inference has only a very general bearing on our present en- 
quiry and may be left in abeyance. 

Two factors are conspicuous in the discourse of Mk. 9: 33-50: (1) 
A theme continuing that of the teaching at Caesarea Philippi, 
where Jesus reveals the doctrine of the Cross (8: 31-38), a theme 
continued in the series of anecdotes in 10: 17-45, all of which relate 
to Renunciation and Reward. The burden of the group is: Leave all 
for the kingdom’s sake. ‘‘He that would save his life shall lose it, 


THE DISCOURSES 145 


but he that is ready to lose it for the kingdom’s sake shall save it.’’ 
This note of heroism and martyrdom pervades the major part of 
the material in Mk. 9: 30-10: 45, including the eloquent paragraph 
(poetic in form as well as substance, and saturated with Isaian 
phraseology) on Sacrificing All, 9: 43-48. As is well known, most 
of this paragraph appears twice in Matthew (Mt. 5:29 £.=18:8 f.). 
(2) Intermingled in strange combination with this primary theme 
appears a second theme on Receiving versus Stumbling, a series of 
logia partly recurrent in Q (principally in the Lukan form) in- 
culcating the duty of consideration for the weak. It is this second 
theme which is superimposed, and dominates the construction, in 
spite of its smaller bulk and looser relation to the story as a whole. 
For the introductory incident, as we have seen, is the Dispute as to 
Who should be Greatest (verses 33-35); and although this seems 
to be only a briefer version of 10: 13-16, 35-45 it has doubtless been 
inserted at this point by the compiler of the Gospel for the sake of 
introducing the discourse in its present form. The theme of Re- 
ceiving versus Stumbling is continued by the Rebuke of Intoler- 
ance (verses 38-40) interjected between the two parts of the Q 
logion on Reward for Kindness to Christ’s Messengers (Mk. 9: 37b, 
41—Mt. 18:5 f.—Lk. 10:40), and a briefer adaptation of another 
Q logion on Stumbling the Weak (Lk. 17:1 f.=Mt. 18:6 f.). The 
series ends with two Q logia on Saving Salt, attached in strange 
fashion at the close of the agglutination in a manner to bring atten- 
tion back to the point of departure, viz., the Quarrel as to Who shall 
be Greatest (Mk. 9: 49 f.; cf. Lk. 14:34 f—=Mt. 5:13). 

As in the two preceding instances the key to this singular ag- 
glomeration will be found in the evangelist’s effort to apply Pauline 
doctrine in the form of adapted Q logia. The fundamental material, 
as we have seen, consists of teaching continuous with the revelation 
of the Way of the Cross in chapter 8 and the anecdotes on Renun- 
ciation and Reward in chapter 10. With this we are not now con- 
cerned. It is the superimposed material which interests us. As in 
the Parable Discourse it appears not to be all of one stratum. The 
Rebuke of Intolerance (verses 38-40) has at least the appearance 
of later attachment, since its omission by Matthew, so far from 
breaking the context, seems rather to improve it. But however this 
remarkable bit of narrative be accounted for, the remainder of the 
secondary material hangs together by virtue of its inculeation of 
Paul’s exhortation to rulers in the Church, particularly the church 
in Rome, not to ‘‘stumble’’ the weak, but rather to ‘‘receive’’ them 
(Rom. 14:1-15:7). In order to attach this lesson Mark makes use 
of a group of loosely coordinated Q logia. The first identifiable scrap 


146 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


is 9: 37b—=Mt. 10: 40—Lk. 10:16. The most outstanding is the lo- 
gion of Lk. 17:1f£.—Mt. 18:6 f. That the Lukan form is the more 
original and authentic is self-evident. Its attachment here before 
the poetic paragraph ‘‘If thy hand or foot cause thee to stumble,”’ 
etc., is manifestly a mere verbal connection. Next to this in impor- 
tance is the closing logion on Saving Salt (verse 50) borrowed from 
@ in the manner to which we are now habituated in Mark (Lk. 14: 
34 f—=Mt. 5:13). Once more our findings as to the sources and 
mode of composition of Mark in the case of the Eschatological Dis- 
course, and the Discourse in Parables, are confirmed. The discourse 
on Receiving versus Stumbling also presupposes Q, more especially 
in the Lukan form. It further presupposes the Pauline teaching, 
more especially that of Romans. | 

3. Next in extent and importance of the discourses of Mark is 
that on Inward Purity, attached in 7: 1-23 to a brief account of how 
Jesus and his disciples had been taken to task for neglecting the 
ablutions before eating. In this case the evangelist comes more than 
‘usually into the foreground through the necessity he seems to feel 
for acquainting his readers with the peculiar customs of ‘‘the 
Pharisees and all the Jews’’ in the matter of ablutions, and in par- 
ticular the peculiar use of the word ‘‘common”’ (xoivos) in the tech- 
nical sense ‘‘polluted.’’ Because this term occurs in the source Mark 
is following he makes a characteristic pause in the midst of his 
story to explain it; then, after a further explanatory digression, he 
returns and repeats his original statement (7: 1-4). The result is 
that we find ourselves at the original outset of the story in verse 5: 


And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk 
according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with polluted hands? 


The answer consists in substance of the Q saying on Inward versus 
Outward Pollution (Mt. 24:25 f=Lk. 11:39-41). This is repro- 
duced by Mark with his usual freedom in verse 15, and is immedi- 
ately made the point of departure for a prolonged explanation to 
the Twelve ‘‘when he had entered the house away from the multi- 
tude’’ (to whom nevertheless according to verse 14 he had specifi- 
cally addressed the saying). As a preliminary to this answer, how- 
ever, Jesus denounces his interlocutors as ‘“‘hypocrites,’’ applying 
to them and their ‘‘vain worship’’ the words of Is. 29:13 quoted 
more briefly by Paul in Col. 2: 22: 


This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 
But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their teachings command- 
ments of men. 


To this general indictment is subjoined the specific charge that in 


THE DISCOURSES 147 


their rulings concerning the inviolability of the korban the scribes 
set the spirit of the commandment at nought. 

All this interjected polemic against scribal religion merely sepa- 
rates question from answer. Like the introductory explanation in 
verses 1-4 it is in the nature of an aside to the reader. Like the long 
interpretation to the Twelve ‘‘when he had entered into the house 
away from the multitude’’ it represents the evangelist’s own 
elaboration of the principle of the logion as he understands it. 
Hence we are justified in regarding the complete discourse as built 
around the question and answer: ‘‘Why do thy disciples eat with 
defiled hands? . . . There is nothing from outside that entering 
into a man ean defile him. But the things which come forth out of 
a man, these defile the man.’’ 

The importance of the logion to Mark is apparent from his ex- 
tensive elaboration of it. The particular application he would give 
it appears from the setting. It forms the prelude to Jesus’ de- 
parture ‘‘into the borders of Tyre and Sidon,’’ where he extends 
to the believing ‘‘Gentile woman’’ the divine help at first reserved 
for “‘the children’’ only (7: 24-30). It is thus for Mark an equiva- 
lent for the story in Acts 10:1-11:18 of how Peter through the 
vision on the house-top was taught that the Mosaic distinctions of 
‘‘elean’’ and ‘‘unclean’’ are not of God but of men (Acts 10:15), 
and how thereafter Peter carried the gospel to the Gentile house- 
hold of Cornelius. 

It is hardly proper to characterize as ‘‘Pauline’’ the doctrine 
here set forth. In reality it goes even beyond Paul in the persuasion 
‘‘that there is nothing unclean of itself,’’ since it omits the saving 
clause that ‘‘to him that accounteth anything to be unclean to him 
it is unclean’’ (Rom. 14:14). Mark is a Paulinist of the type of 
those in Corinth, who needed to be reminded that Paul imposed 
voluntary restrictions on his own perfect liberty, for the sake of the 
overscrupulous. Paul became an “‘imitator of Christ,’’ who had 
‘“become a minister of the circumcision for the sake of the promises 
made to the fathers,’’ who was “‘born under the law that he might 
redeem them that were under the law,’’ who bore ‘‘the reproach of 
Israel’’ and the curse of the law, to redeem us from its curse. Mark 
knows the freedom of Paul; but he does scant justice to its limita- 
tions. He has nothing to say about the avoidance of ‘‘stumbling,”’ 
save the Rebuke of Intolerance which we have already considered in 
the discourse on Receiving versus Stumbling. Moreover in his doc- 
trine of the Spirit he seems wholly unaffected by the Pauline mysti- 
cism. His mind is prosaic and western. 

‘How, then, has Mark composed the discourse in which he em- 


148 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


bodies his idea of the abolition of the ‘‘distinctions of meats?’’ 
After the same method as in the agglutinations already considered. 
As a nucleus he gives us the Q logion on Inward versus Outward 
Purity (Mk. 7:15—Mt. 24:25 f.=Lk. 11:39-41). The occasion 
and scene are as in Lk. 11: 37-41 the house of a Pharisee in Galilee, 
after the Feeding of the Multitude, not as in Mt. 23:25 f., where 
the logion forms part of the great Eschatological Discourse in Jeru- 
salem at the Passover. By way of development Mark resorts to the 
passage of Isaiah quoted by Paul in a similar expostulation with 
those who ‘‘subject themselves to ordinances, ‘Handle not, nor 
taste, nor touch’ (all which things are to perish with the using), 
after ‘the precepts and doctrines of men.’ ’’ Next he justifies the 
charge of ‘‘hypocrisy’’ (cf. Lk. 12:1) by the instance of the korban 
supplied from current polemic. Finally he appends his ‘‘private 
interpretation’’ (verses 17-23). As before, the composition of the 
Discourse on Inward Purity (Mk. 7:1-23) presupposes Q. It also 
presupposes the universalism of Paul. As we shall see in the special 
consideration of this phase of the problem it possibly presupposes 
the particular passage Col. 2: 22 itself. 

4. Our fourth example of Markan discourses differs somewhat in 
mode of composition from the preceding, but its factors are the 
; same: Q material as the basis, Old Testament Scripture in admix- 
ture, Pauline doctrine as the motive. The ‘‘parable’’ of the Usurp- 
ing Husbandmen (Mk. 12: 1-12=Mt. 21: 23-46=Lk. 20: 9-19), at- 
tached by Mark after the Reply to the Demand of the Sanhedrin for 
Jesus’ Authority, is offered by the evangelist as representative of 
a group of “‘parables.’’ In reality it is not strictly a parable, but 
allegory, and for reasons set forth in the Commentary, ad loc., can- 
not be regarded as more than an adaptation of some authentic utter- 
ance of Jesus. As an appendix to the story of Jesus’ challenge to 
the rulers by cleansing the temple, and his reply to their demand 
for his authority by appeal to the prophetic calling of John, it 
serves to turn the retreat of Jesus’ opponents into rout, and leaves 
him not only master of the field, but boldly proclaiming himself the 
Son of God, and predicting the fate he is to suffer at their hands 
until God fulfils in him the prediction of the Passover Psalm al- 
ready cited at the beginning of the section (11:9 f.=Ps. 118: 25 f.; 
AP APTA LUG Siacecd of BM be Spey ane 


The stone which the builders rejected, 
The same was made the head of the corner; 
This (stone) was from the Lord, 

And it is marvellous in our eyes. 


THE DISCOURSES 149 


The quotation closely follows the LXX and may be connected 
with I Pt. 2:7 (but cf. Acts 4:11). Matthew and Luke transcribe 
the section without material change, Matthew softening the predic- 
tion of the transfer of the vineyard to ‘‘others’’ into ‘‘a nation 
bringing forth its fruits’’ (that is, a repentant Israel), and Luke 
attaching a further Isaian Prophecy (Is. 8:14 f.). Mark proceeds 
in this case somewhat beyond mere agglutination; but the Q ma- 
terial he employs is not difficult to identify, nor will it be found 
impracticable to determine why it is introduced at precisely this 
point and in this particular form. It will be found, however, that 
in this case he approximates the Matthean rather than the Lukan 
form of Q. Usually the reverse is the case. 

In brief the origin of the Markan ‘‘parable’’ of the Usurping 
Husbandmen may be stated as follows: It stands for the Q pair of 
parables, Mt. 20: 1-16 and 21: 28-32, whose equivalent material in > 
Luke consists of Lk. 15:1 f., 11-32, and 7: 29 f. Its leading theme, 
however, is taken by Mark from the section of Q in which ‘‘the 
Wisdom of God’’ is quoted in two strophes reproducing the plaint 
of Jeremiah (Jer. 35:15; cf. II Chron. 36:15 f.; Prov. 1: 28-31). 
It may therefore be regarded as Mark’s equivalent for Mt. 23: 34 f. 
—Lk. 11: 49-51 (cf. I Thess. 2:15) : 


Behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes. 
Some of them shall ye kill and crucify, 

And some shall ye scourge in your synagogues 

And persecute from city to city. 


That on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, 
From the blood of Abel the righteous 

To the blood of Zechariah ben-Barachiah 

Whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. 


Still the ‘‘parable’’ of Mk. 12: 1-12 would hardly have been con- 
structed as it is without two contributory factors: (1) The conven- 
tional type of Jehovah’s vineyard in Scripture (cf. Is. 5: 1-7) ; (2) 
the pair of Q parables above referred to, whose present representa- 
tion in Matthew and Luke calls for some further explanation. 

It would carry us too far into questions concerning the trans- 
mission of the Q material to enquire why the parable of the 
Eleventh-Hour Laborers (Mt. 20:1-16) should fail to appear in 
Luke, to whose Special Source it is highly sympathetic; and why 
in addition that of the Grudging Elder Brother, known to the 
world as the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), should be detached 
from one to which in point and bearing it is so closely related as 


150 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the Eleventh-Hour Laborers, and attached to the pair: Lost Sheep- 
Lost Coin (Lk. 15:3-7, 8-10). Pairing is characteristic of the 
parables of Jesus as transmitted, and in this case Luke seems (as 
in others noted by Streeter)® to have formed a trilogy. Instead of 
attempting to solve this problem we may adopt the simpler ex- 
pedient of dropping the material taken from Mark in Mt. 20 f. 
This will leave the non-Markan material in juxtaposition. The re- 
sult is: (1) Parable of the Eleventh-Hour Laborers (20: 1-16) ; 
(2) Parable of the Two Sons sent to Work in the Vineyard (21: 
28-30) ; (8) Application: Conduct of Publicans and Sinners versus 
Pharisees at the Baptism of John (21:31 f.=Lk. 7:29 f.; cf. Lk. 
15:1 f.). At this point comes in our Mark ‘‘parable’’ of the Usurp- 
ing Husbandmen. 

‘Whether we do or do not regard the parable of the Prodigal Son 
as a development along the lines of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin 
or the simpler parable of the Two Sons sent to Work in the Vine- 
yard, it is certain that this latter (Mt. 21: 28-30) forms a real pair 
with its predecessor in the above juxtaposition. The displaced Q 
fragment Lk. 7:29 f.=Mt. 21:31f. and the editorial equivalent 
Lk. 15:1 f. may, or may not, represent recasting in the Lukan form 
of the original Q material. In any case we can hardly fail to recog- 
nize from the phenomena of Mt. 21: 28-32, followed immediately 
by the Markan ‘‘parable,’’ that Matthew had a certain amount of 
Q material which he felt it desirable to add at precisely this point 
of the story, and that this Q material was in the form of two 
parables in which the Scriptural figure of the Vineyard of Jehovah 
came into play, with contrast of unworthy first-comers displaced 
by more favored sons. The pair of parables sets the self-righteous 
Pharisee over against the penitent and forgiven publicans and 
sinners. Mark’s allegory contrasts the arrogant and murderous 
rulers of the Jewish theocracy with that Israel of God which is to 
receive the inheritance (Mk. 12:9). The basis is formed, as we 
saw, by the denunciation quoted from ‘‘the wisdom of God.’’? But 
the casting of this into the form of an allegorized parable of the 
putting to death of the Son of God in Mk. 12:1-12 can best be 
accounted for when we take into consideration the two parables of 
Workers in the Vineyard of Jehovah which seem by the testimony 
of Matthew to have followed in Q at precisely this point of the 
story, viz., Jesus’ appeal to ‘‘the Baptism of John.’’ One need 

6 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. Sanday et al., 1911, p. 194. 

7 Cf. the citation of ‘‘all-virtuous Wisdom’’ by Clement of Rome (ad Cor. 


Ivii.). It is the equivalent passage Prov. 1: 23-31 and is applied both by Clement 
and Hegesippus to the disaster of 70 A.D. 


THE DISCOURSES 151 


hardly point to I Thess. 2:15; Gal. 4:4 f. to prove the ‘Pauline’ 
standpoint of Mark; nor to his use of the Passover Psalm in 12: 10 f. 
(previously in 11:9 f.) and of Is. 5:1 f. in 12:1, to prove that in 
this as in the preceding examples these three, Q material, Old 
Testament, and teaching akin to Paul’s, are the factors for his com- 
position. 

5. The next section of Mark, the Questions of Pharisee, Sadducee, 
and Scribe (12: 138-34), also has an appendix. At the close are at- 
tached: (1) a Question of the Christ (12: 35-87) ; (2) a Denuncia- 
tion of the Scribes (12: 38-40) ; (3) the story of the Widow’s Mites 
(12: 41-44). Reasons have been given in the Commentary for re- 
garding the first of the group as from the hand of the evangelist 
personally. The second will be recognized with little critical dissent 
as a briefer form of the Woes on the Seribes from Q (Mt. 23: 1-7= 
Lk. 11: 48, 46; cf. 21:1-4). The third (omitted by Matthew) is an 
anecdote closely related in feeling to the Special Source of Luke, 
apparently drawn in at this point by the phrase of the preceding 
verse which accuses the scribes of ‘‘devouring widows’ houses’’ 
(estates). It is doubtful if the mere trace of the Denunciation of the 
Scribes in Mk. 12: 38-40 should be regarded as one of the Markan 
Discourses. If it be included its witness merely confirms that of the 
preceding examples in respect to the use of Q material. Mark has 
at command material of this type. He does not choose to insert it 
all, but adapts brief extracts freely to his own purposes. He com- 
piles and edits on the basis of an older outline, as do Matthew and 
Luke, but with greater freedom of adaptation. He uses Old Testa- 
ment material in the Greek translation, and has a decidedly anti- 
Jewish and (on the broader issues) a Pauline point of view. 


CHAPTER XIII 
THE OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 


THE preceding chapter has furnished in greater detail than was 
possible within the compass of the Commentary on what grounds the 
assertion was there made that ‘‘Our evangelist has used the ancient 
common source of Matthew and Luke (Q) to embellish and supple- 
ment an earlier and simpler narrative.’’' It is to be hoped that the 
present fuller development will also be found to bear out the. 
further statement of the mode and nature of this Markan use of Q. 


The use thus made is by no means characterized by sympathetic and 
appreciative insight. On the contrary Mark in all such cases uniformly 
pragmatizes, materializes, exaggerates in the interest of his demonstration 
of the divine sonship of Jesus in the superhuman sense of 13: 32, on the 
basis of wonders. . . . The process is not that of mechanical addition. In 
fact the Q elements are more frequently interjected as if from memory 
only. Brief supplements or editorial surveys are more frequent than con- 
secutive extracts, of which there are few. Fragments are strung together 
sometimes upon mere catch-words, sometimes with more’ definite logical 
connection, but with slight regard for their original bearing. It is as though 
the type of Petrine narrative gospel had been already too firmly fixed to 
admit of radical recasting, and the new material had been added in adapta- 
tion only, and for the most part in the form of memoriter interpolations 
and supplements. 


Our examination of the few discourses of Mark has proved (if 
proof were needed) that the narrative character of the work is 
chosen of set purpose. What appeared to the eye rather than what 
appealed to the ear was of chief concern to this evangelist. For this 
reason even when he departs from his usual practice by embodying 
certain portions of Q material, the amount is always greatly re- 
duced and its character changed into narrative form. One example 
is the Cursing of the Fig Tree in place of the Parable of the Barren 
Fig Tree, another the Hiding of the Mystery of the Kingdom from 
Outsiders, a third, which we must examine presently, John the 
Baptist as Elijah redivivus. 

We have now to carry over to the narrative material of Mark the 
same process of source-analysis already applied to the discourses. 
For it is not only generally recognized in the case of the Blasphemy 


1 Beginnings, p. xxi. 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 153 


of the Scribes (already referred to as interjected in Mk. 3: 22-30 
from @) that the Second Source contained a certain proportion of 
narrative, some of which might have been taken up by Mark, but 
it is also probable from what we have already seen of the pragmatiz- 
ing tendency of Mark that he has turned poetry into prose, parable 
into fact, metaphor into concrete reality, and utilized the implica- 
tions of discourse to bridge over gaps in his knowledge of the course 
of events. It will perhaps not unduly anticipate the course of our 
enquiry if we borrow as a preliminary statement a presentation of 
the facts given in the volume just quoted, continuing from the close 
of the preceding extract: 


Moreover, the Q material came into our evangelist’s hands not as a mere 
syntagma of teachings of Jesus, but already equipped with at least the 
narrative introduction which relates John’s Preaching and the Baptism 
and Temptation of Jesus. In all probability certain narratives which are 
wanting in Matthew, but which Luke presents in association with Q, are 
drawn by Mark from this Lukan source. The dependence in the cases re- 
ferred to is certainly on the side of Mark, not merely from the nature of 
the material, which is intimately connected with the Special Source of 
Luke, and often bears on its face the marks of this distinctively humani- 
tarian narrative, but still more because the connection in Mark is invari- 
ably forced and artificial, showing clearly its later attachment to the story. 


At least the Special Source of Luke, in which most if not all of 
the Q material is found embedded, was a narrative. Like the Petrine 
narrative of Acts 1-12, and many romances of later Hellenistic 
literature both Christian and non-Christian, discourse preponder- 
ated. The appetite of the age for monologue and dialogue seems to 
have been insatiable. But the Second Source introduced its leading 
character by an account of the work of John his predecessor, and 
therefore must have had a conclusion to tell the fate of the char- 
acter so circumstantially introduced. A very large element of the 
Q material revolves around the question raised by John as to the 
personality and work of this central character. The question grows 
out of the ‘‘mighty works’’ which this central character is reported 
to have performed, and is answered by an appeal to the miracles 
as having a certain significance for the question whether Jesus is, 
or is not, ‘‘he that should come.’’ Another very considerable ele- 
ment of Q condemns the cities of Galilee for not accepting the 
message thus commended; still other extracts relate to the fate to 
fall upon Jerusalem for the same reason. Incidentally anecdotes 
such as the Healing of the Centurion’s Servant are admitted to be 
drawn from this same Q source, so that if (as Harnack maintains) 
it was ‘‘not a gospel,’’ it would be hard indeed to say wherein it 


154 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


fell short of that narrative character which belongs to a gospel 
appeal to ‘‘the works of Christ.’’ Moreover the criterion adopted 
for judging its narrative content involves a manifest fallacy. The 
definition of Q is ‘‘coincident material of Matthew and Luke not 
found in Mark.’’ If, then, Mark has drawn any of his material from 
Q, by the very definition itself this portion of Q is cancelled out. 
The material of Mark being chiefly narrative the non-Markan re- 
mainder of the source would of course be mainly discourse. Thus 
the inference that the source reconstructed on the basis of this re- 
mainder was mainly discourse is plain self-deception. Nothing of 
the kind can be inferred. The reasoning moves in a circle. 

Least of all can it be argued from the testimony of Papias that 
the Second Source consisted mainly of “‘things said.’’ For Papias | 
had no idea of the existence of a Second Source, but spoke simply 
of our own Gospel of Matthew as a ‘‘syntaxis’’ of the Lord’s pre- 
cepts, averring that these (like all gospel material) had been trans- 
lated from the Aramaic. The effort to find a proto-Matthew con- 
sisting mainly of logia is waste of time. When based (as in the case 
of Harnack and a whole group of English critics) on misinterpreta- 
tion of Papias, it is misleading. 

It is on quite other grounds, mainly internal, that the Second 
Source may properly be recognized as predominating in discourse 
material. But this by no means implies that it was not a true gos- 
pel, mainly concerned (like all gospels) with the person, mission, 
and fate of Jesus as the Christ of God. Its Christology differs from 
the Markan in presenting Jesus as the supreme incarnation of the 
revealing and redemptive Wisdom of God. Because it conceives 
salvation much as it is conceived in James (an indwelling of the 
divine gift of ‘wisdom,’ a being ‘‘brought forth by the word of 
truth to be a kind of ‘first-fruits’ of the creation’’) the evangelist 
naturally places teaching in the foreground. Like ‘James,’ the 
author of the Q material is a Christian Wisdom writer. To him the 
message of Jesus is an ‘‘implanted word which is able to save men’s 
souls.’’ It is a ‘royal law,’’ a “‘ perfect law of liberty.’’ Why should 
he not be anxious to tell this teaching of Jesus to the fullest possible 
extent? And yet, as we have seen, the work and person of Jesus 
were central to the whole composition. 

This brief preliminary characterization of the Second Source may 
be pardoned if it involves some digression from our present quest, 
inasmuch as there is need first of all to realize what sort of material 
lies in the background of Mark’s composition. We may pass now to 
individual instances of its employment, restricting ourselves in the 
present chapter to traces of the influence of Q on the narrative. 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 155 


1. The Baptism of John. In the Special Source of Luke the birth 
of John is a matter to be related with almost equal circumstance 
to that of Jesus. A priest of the sons of Aaron and the course of 
Abia receives angelic annunciation of it, and its miraculous nature 
is attested by a sign from heaven. John is sent ‘‘in the spirit and 
power of Elias’’ to prepare Israel for the Day of Jehovah’s Coming. 
The Q material which follows this material from the Special Source 
shows similar interest. John’s Preaching of Repentance is given in 
substance. Later still his question evoked by the ‘‘works of the 
Christ’’ gives occasion, as we have seen, to a Denunciation of Un- 
belief, in which the contrast of these same works of healing, mercy, 
and glad tidings to the poor, with the austere warning of John, 
serves to set forth the true mission of Jesus as the redeeming Wis- 
dom of God. But this is not all. Preliminary to this presentation of 
Jesus’ own claims is one which he makes on the Baptist’s behalf; 
and the essential teaching of Jesus’ utterance regarding the Baptist 
is that ‘‘This is he of whom it was written (Mal. 3:1 Heb.) : Be- 
hold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy 
way before thee.’’ Greater than all the prophets, though less than 
the least of those in the kingdom whose coming he announces, John 
is no other than ‘‘Elias which should come’’ (Lk. 7: 24-35=Mt. 
LT 19):. 

Over against this valuation of the Baptist in the Special Source 
of Luke as well as in Q stands the valuation of Mark, who reduces 
the forerunner almost to the level occupied by him in the fourth 
Gospel, where John is manifested only to fade away before the 
dawning of the true Light. True, the Baptist is still in Mark’s ac- 
count ‘‘ Elias which was to come.’’ But instead of a description of 
his work of turning Israel to repentance we are given only exter- 
nalities. John is the Elias of Jewish legend who anoints the Christ, 
because (as Trypho informs us in the Dialogue with Justin, viii. 
and xlix.) : 


The Christ, if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere, is unknown, 
and does not even know himself, and has no power, until Elias come to 
anoint him and make him manifest to all. 


The baptism which John preaches is nominally a ‘‘baptism of re- 
pentance unto forgiveness of sins’’ (Mk. 1:4). But it is a baptism 
not related to John’s work, but to another’s. John’s own preaching 
of repentance is completely ignored. His baptism is a mere pre- 
figuration of Christian baptism, to be completed at Pentecost (1: 
8). Instead of the account of John’s reformatory movement Mark 
gives us his Announcement of the Greater One that Comes After. 


eg 


156 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Instead of the Elijan ministry (“‘turning the heart of Israel back 
again,’’ I Kings 18:37; cf. Eeclus. 48:10) he tells of John’s re- 
semblance to Elijah in costume and diet (! ). 

But even these externalities of Mark are not original. Every de- 
tail is gleaned from the Q discourse. ‘‘In the wilderness’’ is the 
place where Jesus had described the multitudes as ‘‘going forth.”’ 
John eschewed the food of civil life, neither ‘‘eating bread nor 
drinking wine.’’ He was not ‘‘clothed in soft raiment’’ but wore 
the garb of the prophet-anchorite, which in the case of Elijah had 
been specifically described (II Kings 1:8) as ‘‘a garment of hair, 
with a leathern girdle about his loins.’’ It is not conjecture which 
leads us to say that Mark borrows this description together with 
his quotation of Mal. 3:1 from Q. It is proof derived from the » 
language. The mistaken reference of the quotation to ‘‘Isaiah’’ 
would alone show it to be borrowed. But in addition it is given in 
the exact language of Mt. 11:10=Lk. 7: 27, although this differs 
from the LXX which Mark elsewhere employs. Moreover in describ- 
ing John’s diet Mark uses the very unusual form écOwv (verse 6). 
Only four instances of this spelling occur elsewhere in the New 
Testament. All four are in the Special Source of Luke. Two of them 
are in the verse which contrasts the mode of life of the Son of Man 
with the Baptist, ‘‘John came neither eating (€o6ov) nor drinking ; 
the Son of Man came eating (é06wv) and drinking’’ (Lk. 7:33 f.). 
It is evidence of this kind which justifies the statement of the 
Commentary (p. Xx): 


Not the Pauline Epistles only affect Mark’s whole line of apologetic, but 
his use of the source independently employed by Matthew and Luke is 
susceptible of critical demonstration. 


We have had occasion in our study of the composition of the Markan 
discourses to observe that our evangelist is not lacking in acquaint- 
ance either with the Greek Old Testament, or with Jewish legend, 
and that he uses Q material in combination with such data under 
doctrinal influence of Pauline type. The present instance shows the 
same characteristics. The Elias legend is used in combination with 
Is. 40:3 and II Kings 1:8 to develop a theme borrowed from Q. 
The interest in the reformatory movement of the Baptist as such is 
mil. Interest in John’s contribution to the manifestation of the 
Christ by an anointing which reveals Jesus as endowed with divine 
power is supreme. 

2. The Temptation. The dependence of Mk. 1:12 f. on Q (Mt. 4: 
2-11—Lk. 4: 2-13) is commonly recognized. We note only Mark’s 
complete disregard for its ethical teaching. The Temptations pre- 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 157 


sent a threefold contrast of a Christ ‘‘after the things of men’’ 
with Christhood after ‘‘the things of God.’’ So far as this: affects 
Mark at all it is reserved for the Rebuke of Peter at Caesarea 
Philippi (cf. 8:33 with Mt. 4:8-11=Lk. 4:5-8). Mark interests 
himself little enough in the teaching, but proceeds to draw infer- 
ences as to matters of supposed concrete fact. The Son of God, 
adopted by and filled with the Spirit, put Satan to flight. The addi- 
tion of the subjection of the wild beasts after the ministration of 
the angels is derived not from Q directly, but from the Scripture 
quoted in Q (Ps. 91:13 continuing verse 12). 

3. Passing over the section relating the Beginning of the Ministry 
(Mk. 1: 1-39), perhaps derived in the main from the Apostle Peter 
by oral tradition, we come to a group of anecdotes designed to 
show how the opposition of scribes and Pharisees was roused by 
Jesus’ claims of authority, his vindication of it provoking con- 
Spiracy against his life (Mk. 1:40-3:6). The two Sabbath contro- 
versies which form the conclusion of this section are separated from 
the earlier portion (1:40-2:22) by Matthew (2: 23-3:6=Mt. 12: 
1-14) and have to do with a different though kindred issue. They 
are probably from some other context. We may limit ourselves here 
to the earlier portion (1:40-2:22). 

The incident of the Leper (1: 40-45) stands somewhat apart. It 
has no chronological relation to the context and seems to be adduced 
merely to illustrate how Jesus was compelled to withdraw from 
importunity. Whether any other motive exists for its introduction 
here we may enquire later. 

The remainder of the section deals with objections raised against 
Jesus on the ground that he (a) proclaims a gospel of Forgiveness 
of Sins (2: 1-12) ; (b) consorts with Publicans and Sinners (13-17) ; 
(c) Disregards the set Fasts (18-20). He answers first, by appeal 
to the mighty works of healing; second, by declaring the nature of 
his mission, which is for ‘‘sinners’’ and belongs to ‘‘sons of the 
bride-chamber’’ (who are exempt from fasting). As representatives 
of the old order before the glad tidings ‘‘the disciples of John’’ 
appear in verse 18 along with the Pharisees. The section concludes 
with two proverbs of unknown derivation whose application is a 
radical one. The new order cannot be treated as a patching up of 
the old (verse 21). The attempt to impose constraint on new forces 
will bring explosion (verse 22). Luke adds a third proverb of more 
or less contradictory bearing (Lk. 5:39). 

Even without the ‘‘disciples of John’’ the affinity of this group 
to the Q series just drawn upon for the description of the Baptist 
(Mt. 11: 2-19=Lk. 7: 18-35) would be apparent. Jesus’ vocation is 


158 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


that of the Isaian herald of peace. It is by appeal to his mighty 
works of healing (though in a different manner from the Markan) 
that Jesus in this Q context vindicates his divine mission. In par- 
ticular he causes the “‘lame’’ to walk and proclaims glad tidings 
(in the Isaian sense of divine forgiveness) to the poor (that is, 
destitute Israel). He refers incidentally in the Q discourse to having 
‘“cleansed lepers,’’ in spite of the fact that in the basic passage 
from Is. 29:18 f.; 35:5 f.; 61: 1 no reference is made to the healing 
of leprosy. One can hardly fail to infer that the preceding Q narra- 
tive contained an account of the cleansing of a leper or lepers. Only 
in the Lukan form, however, is the ‘‘glad tidings to the poor’’ 
specifically illustrated. Lk. 7:36-50 continues the vindication of 
this Isaian mission of the Christ by the incident of the penitent . 
‘‘woman that was a sinner’’ who bedewed the feet of Jesus with 
her tears at the table of the Pharisee, hastily wiping away the de- 
filing drops with her hair. Jesus thereupon declares her sins for- 
given, to the scandalizing of the Pharisee, but vindicates his declara- 
tion by the evidence that ‘‘she loved much.’’ In this Lukan form 
(Matthew’s omission of the incident of the sinful woman forgiven 
is paralleled by his omission of the Widow’s Mites, and the omission 
of the Woman Taken in Adultery by all our canonical evangelists) 
the Q group supplies the true foundation of the Markan. For it 
cannot be maintained that the bald appeal to miracle in support of 
claims to superhuman authority in Mk. 2:1-12 is more authentic 
than the Q description of Jesus’ vindication of his declaration of 
‘‘olad tidings to the poor’’ by the visible divine codperation. The 
Markan form is certainly secondary, materializing, unpoetic, dog- 
matic. It draws from the Q material (in the Lukan form) certain 
incidents; (a) the healing of a leper (?); (b) causing a lame man 
to walk; (¢) eating with publicans and sinners; (d) declaring sins 
forgiven; (e) disregarding fasts; (f) declaring the disciples sons 
of the bride-chamber (cf. Mt. 11: 17-19=Lk. 7: 33-35). These in- 
cidents are then employed to prove the divine authority of Jesus 
in controversy with scribes and Pharisees, and the series is closed 
by two radically anti-Jewish logia.? The section as a whole is com- 
pleted by the addition of two incidents of Sabbath controversy and 
winds up with the statement that, ‘‘The Pharisees went out, and 
straightway with the Herodians (?) took counsel against him how 
they might destroy him.’’ As compared with the Q material, even 


2 The Isaian parallel seems to have continued in the Source with an opening 
of deaf ears and blind eyes, and a setting at liberty of Satan’s captives (Mt. 12: 
22-29—Lk. 11: 14-22; cf. Is. 43: 8; 49: 24-26; 61: 1). Mark uses this in a later 
context (Mk. 7: 32-37; 8:11 f., 22-26). 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 159 


in the Lukan form, this cannot be regarded as primitive. It is 
probable, then, that the healings of the leper and the paralytic 
(‘‘the lame walk’’) were related in the Second Source. Whether in 
this form and connection is much more doubtful. The application, 
to demonstrate the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins and 
to disregard the Mosaic observances, is Mark’s; but clearly the 
suggestion comes from the Q material, where the question is raised 
by the messengers of John. The ‘cruder type of Christology and 
the balder appeal to miracle are characteristic of Mark. Here ‘‘the 
disciples of John’’ are mentioned only incidentally (cf. Jn. 5: 
Tetheecoy) et 

4. In the section dealing with the Choosing and Sending of the 
Twelve (Mk. 3:7-6:138) there are many traces of the mode of 
composition and sources employed in this Gospel. As regards use 
of the Second Source we have already shown admixture from it in 
the Discourse in Parables (4: 1-34) and pointed out that the para- 
graph relating the Blasphemy of the Scribes, interjected into the 
midst of the introductory Mother and Brethren incident (3: 22-30), 
is derived from the same source. Mark’s aim is to strengthen the 
indictment against the Jewish ‘‘kin according to the flesh,’’ from 
whom the “‘mystery of the kingdom’’ is taken, that it may be given 
to those who ‘‘do the will of God.’’ To this anti-Jewish motive al- 
ready noted we may now add a comparison of the difference of the 
Markan from the Q Christology as shown in the section on the 
Authority of the Son of Man. 

We have also an appeal to miracle in the more authentic Q ver- 
sion. But it is no self-glorification of Jesus. On the contrary he 
merely suggests to John and others who are ‘‘stumbled in’’ the Son 
of Man, that they observe what God is doing through Jesus to fulfil 
the Isaian promise. The lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the 
nation in poverty and death has ‘‘glad tidings’’ of forgiveness and 
restoration to life proclaimed to it. In Q the subject for considera- 
tion is not Jesus personally (‘‘blessed is he who shall not be 
stumbled in me’’), but the work of God effected through him. Jesus 
is God’s agent and messenger. God confirms the message by His 
own healing strength sent into the physically weak, and by the 
flood of ‘‘much love’’ overflowing in the hearts of penitent ‘‘sin- 
ners.’’ In the Markan form of the argument Jesus personally exer- 
eises the power. As “‘Son of man’’ (2:10; cf. Mt. 11: 19=—Lk. 7: 
34) he confirms his own word of authority. The difference between 
Q and Mark in the paragraph on the Blasphemy of the Scribes is 
identical. In Q Jesus argues “‘If I by the finger (Mt. ‘spirit’) of 


160 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


God cast out demons his sovereignty is seen to be already dominant 
among you.’’ The evidence of Jesus’ message is God’s confirmation 
of it by the work of His Spirit, a stronger than the “‘strong man 
armed’’ of Is. 49: 24 f. In Mark’s form of the story Jesus himself 
is the ‘‘Mighty One,’’ by speaking against whom the scribes have 
committed the unpardonable sin. The sentence omitted by him 
(Mt. 12:27 f.=Lk. 11:19 f.) is the very key to the meaning and 
reveals a truly reverent attitude of Jesus toward the mighty works, 
both here and in the preceding section. 

In both the intercalated paragraph on the Blasphemy of the 
Seribes and the additions to the Discourse in Parables the Q ma- 
terial in Mark appears to be superimposed. Q material appears to be 
employed also at the end of the section in the Mission of the Twelve 
(6: 7-13; cf. Mt. 10:1, 9-14=Lk. 9: 1-6=10: 1-12) ; but in this case 
all that can be clearly shown is that the Markan form is the later 
(in Q the principle is ‘No more is needful than to go as you are’: 
in Mark ‘Avoid every superfiuity’). The relation of the source- 
material to the composition is less manifest. Still, since the ending 
belongs to the skeletal structure of the Gospel, it is reasonable in 
this case as before to regard the evangelist personally as responsible 
for the extract. 

Other data are not wanting in Mk. 3: 7-6: 13 to prove the hetero- 
geneous derivation of the material. The opening paragraph con- 
sists of an editorial expansion of the first verse, “‘And Jesus with 
his disciples withdrew to the sea, and a great multitude from 
Galilee and Judea followed.’’ The sequel to this was probably the 
scene of 4: 1 ff. The expansion consists of three parts occupying the 
rest of the chapter. All of these additions bear in their contents the 
traces of alien derivation. 

(1) The description of the outside multitude in verses 8-12 is 
attached by means of an awkward duplication (kat nxorovOynoay . . . 
kal 7AGov mpos adrov), and consists of mere scraps borrowed from the 
context (1053 cf :24..4 21315 20 031 Ge 0G lo Of ease 
purpose of the addition to verse 7 is merely to enlarge the horizon 
and prepare for the general lesson of the section. 

(2) The list of the Twelve (verses 13-19) is introduced by a 
similar awkward duplication (kat éxofjnoe dddexa... Kal éxoinoey Tovs 
dwdexa), and shows its alien derivation by the fact that Levi (called 
after the first four according to 2:14) finds no place in it, while 
the name “‘Peter’’ has now to be explained. The list in its original 
form can easily be restored in verses 16 ff. as follows: 


And he made the Twelve: Peter and James and John and Andrew, ete. 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 161 


The grammatical infelicities show that the comments explaining 
surnames are later additions. 

(3) The incident of the Mother and Brethren (3:20 f., 31-35) 
parallels a logion of the Special Source of Luke (Lk. 11:27 f.). 
The motive for its introduction here is made more clearly apparent 
by the redundancy of the style in verses 31-35, where clauses are 
heaped one upon another to make unmistakable the application of 
the logion to “‘those that were about him with the Twelve.’’ One 
may gauge the measure of freedom Mark allows himself in report- 
ing logia from this source by comparing original and adaptation. 
It is made introductory here to the Discourse in Parables considered 
as a Hiding of the Mystery from Outsiders, and therefore belongs 
to the editorial adaptation. Of the further reénforcement by inter- 
jection of the Q passage in verses 22-30 we have already spoken. 

5. The section describing Jesus’ retirement from Galilee (Mk. 6: 
14-8: 26) is even more clearly marked than its predecessor by 
duplication, separation of contexts, and other traces of editorial 
manipulation. 

Herod’s Comment (6:14-16) is not the continuation, as even 
critical readers of the Gospel sometimes assume, of the Mission of 
the Twelve (6: 7-13), nor even of the Visit to Nazareth (6:1-6) 
which next precedes. It is a sequel to the series of Mighty Works in 
4:35-5:43, which culminate in the Raising of the Daughter of 
Jairus (5: 21-43). ‘‘ People were saying (read éAeyov, not éAcyev) John 
the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers 
work in him.’’ The reference is to the mighty works of Jesus, in 
particular his raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead, for such 
wonders were expected of Elias redivivus. The intercalation of the 
Visit to Nazareth, and the Mission of the Twelve destroys this con- 
nection. The latter paragraph we have just seen to be derived from 
Q. The former probably comes from the Special Source of Luke. 
At least the logion is paralleled in Lk. 4: 16-30, in a context much 
of which is independent of Mark, and the phraseology (co¢ia, 
divas, tpopyrns) recalls this source, the series of Faith Wonders 
begun at 4:35 closes at 5:48, the Gerasene Demoniac (5: 1-20) 
being of alien type.* Possibly the Lame made to Walk (2:1-5, 11 
f.), which illustrates the same theme, may have been originally 
one of the group. But the Visit to Nazareth, setting in contrast the 
‘“‘unbelief’’ of Jesus’ ‘‘own kin,’’ was not its proper close. Need- 

8 See Bacon on ‘‘The Markan Theory of Demonic Recognition of the Christ’’ 


in ZNW VI. (1905), pp. 153-158. The story has perhaps been influenced by the 
incident of Acts 16:17. 


162 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


less to dwell on the anti-Jewish sentiment shown in the appending 
of this addition. 

The sequel to Herod’s Comment has disappeared entirely. Digres- 
sing to tell the circumstances under which Herod had “‘ beheaded 
John’’ Mark forgets entirely to inform the reader what ensued 
upon his hearing of the mighty works of Jesus. Originally some- 
thing more must have been intended than to show that Antipas was 
more superstitious than his subjects. The parallel from the Special 
Source of Luke (Lk. 13:31 f.) allows the reasonable conjecture (so 
Wellhausen) that Jesus was now obliged to withdraw from Herod’s 
jurisdiction. On the late and legendary character of the digression 
we have already dwelt to sufficient extent.* 

The closing scene of the Galilean Ministry is the Feeding of the 
Multitude, with its sequel the Walking on the Sea and Landing at 
Gennesaret (6: 30-55, 56). Notoriously this section is duplicated by 
8: 1-10, which repeats the miracle on the non-Jewish side of the 
Lake. But in giving his interpretation of the logion ‘‘ Beware of the 
leaven of the Pharisees’’ (8:15; cf. Lk. 12:1), our evangelist (the 
same who in 3:6 and 12:13 makes the “‘ Pharisees and Herodians’’ 
the conspirators against Jesus) shows that he fully intends this 
duplication. To him each of the two miracles of the loaves has its 
own significance. The paragraph rebukes the Twelve for inability 
to go beneath the surface sense. Clearly the reader also is expected 
to apply spiritual discernment. 

In our discussion of the Discourse on Inward Purity’ we have 
seen how Mark has drawn upon Q material (Lk. 11: 37-41=Mt. 
23:25 f.) to connect his account of Jesus’ journey to ‘‘the coasts 
of Tyre and Sidon’’ with the First Miracle of the Loaves (6: 56°-7: 
37). The sequel to the Second Miracle of the Loaves is parallel, and 
also composed of Q material. Landing from the boat Jesus comes 
again into collision with the Pharisees; not now, however, in alli- 
ance with Scribes from Jerusalem, nor on the point of neglect of 
the ablutions, but on the issue of a Sign from Heaven, which in 
the Q context (Lk. 11:16, 29 ff.=Mt. 12: 38-42) forms part of the 
same discourse. Moreover this same Q discourse takes its start from 
a mighty work of Jesus described in Mt. 12:22 as exorcizing a 
demon ‘‘blind and dumb’’ (in Lk. 11:14 ‘‘blind’’) so that the 
multitudes marvelled. Curiously, the first of the two Markan groups 
closes with the Healing of a Deaf-mute, elaborated with great de- 
seriptive detail (7: 31-37), the second group closes with the Heal- 

4 Above, p. 72. 

5 Above, p. 146 ff. 

6 This verse repeats editorially verses 53-55. 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 163 


ing of a Blind Man, similarly elaborated with the same sort of 
descriptive detail (8: 22-26). These are the only two miracles re- 
lated in Mark which have not been transcribed by the later Synop- 
tists, but even these form no exception if identified with the corre- 
sponding Q healings. The closeness of the relation appears not 
merely in the healings themselves, but in the response of the by- 
standers : 


Mt. 12: 23. Moors | ea LE Kb 
And all the multi- And they were beyond And the multitudes 
tudes were astonished measure astonished, say- marvelled. 
and said: Can this be ing, He hath done all 
the Son of David? things well; he maketh 
even the deaf to hear 
and the dumb to speak. 


The reason for the Markan descriptive elaboration is symbolic. 
Language and motive alike are from the Old Testament (poyAddos, 
7:32; found only in Is. 85:6 LXX; dxoa/, in this sense only Mk. 
7:33; Acts 17:20; and LXX; dAados, only Mk. 7:37 and 9:17, 25 
and LXX; dupara, 8:23 and Mt. 20: 34, elsewhere LXX only). The 
motive is taken from Is. 29:18 (cf. Wisdom 10:21). It is worth 
observing that this passage on the deaf and blind seeing and hear- 
ing to the shame of the wise men is part of the context of the pas- 
sage on ‘‘commandments of men’’ quoted just before in Mk. 7: 6 f., 
and that the whole chapter (Is. 29) was the locus classicus against 
the Synagogue employed by the Nazarene Christians of Beroea in 
Syria in the time of Apollinarios. One must further compare the 
Matthean abstract of Mk. 7: 31-87 in Mt. 15: 29-31, and the relation 
of both to Is. 29: 9-24 to fully appreciate the literary relations of 
this intricate section. In brief, Mark is making two applications of 
the Miracle of the Loaves understood as symbolizing the dissemina- 
tion of the teaching. In 7: 1-37 the Scribes and Pharisees and their 
‘“precepts of men’’ are forsaken, Jesus going to the Gentiles in 
Phoenicia and Decapolis. In 8: 1-26 the Pharisees are forsaken a 
second time in ‘‘the parts of Dalmanutha’”’ (?) and Jesus comes to 
‘‘Bethsaida’’ (8:10, 22). In reality the reference to ‘‘the village’”’ 
(xn) in the story itself (verse 26) shows that the city of Beth- 
saida in Philip’s territory cannot have been the original scene. 
Mark is advancing his story toward Caesarea Philippi (verse 27). 
The original scene was doubtless one of the ‘‘villages’’ of Gennes- 
aret mentioned in the introductory description 6: 53-56. 

The omission of the entire section Mk. 6:45-8:26 by Luke is 
not due to its absence from the form of Mark before him, for it 


164 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


was present in Matthew’s text, and Luke himself gives some traces 
of acquaintance with it. Luke may have recognized its duplicate 
character. But the chief reason is that he has a far more historical 
and fuller account in Acts of the breaking down of the statutes and 
ordinances erected. against Gentile participation in the promises 
which Paul speaks of as a ‘‘middle wall of partition.’’ Luke there- 
fore cancels Mark’s more polemic account of how Jesus with a 
sweeping utterance ‘‘made all meats clean’’ and thereafter ‘‘went 
away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon,’’ repeating in Gentile 
territory his miracles of healing, exorcism, and bread from heaven. 
Historically Luke’s cancellation was certainly an improvement. 
Even Paul admits that Jesus became ‘‘a minister of the cireum- 
cision for the sake of the promises made to the fathers.’’ But Mark 
out-Pauls Paul. As before he has utilized Q material,’ in fact two 
kinds of Q material. And he has made diligent use of the Greek 
Old Testament. But his composition, earlier as it is than either Luke 
or Matthew, shows clearly that it is by no means primitive. It is an 
intricate interweaving of older documents with a pronounced anti- 
Jewish and (in the broad sense) Pauline propensity. 

6. The second part of Mark begins at Caesarea Philippi with the 
Revelation to Peter and the Twelve of the Doctrine of the Cross. 
Their unwillingness to receive it marks the culmination of that 
Jewish ‘‘hardness of heart’’ which according to Mark infected 
even the Twelve (6:52; 7:18; 8:18, 21). The Revelation to Peter 
therefore becomes the fit occasion for Jesus’ rebuke of Satan fur- 
nished by the Q story of the Temptation (8:33; cf. Mt. 4: 8-11= 
Lk. 4: 5-8). Attachment is made to the slender thread of historical 
narrative at 6:14 f., and if at any point of the Gospel one is en- 
titled to look for direct testimony from the Apostle it may well be 
here. Still the context is shot through with Q logia in combination 
with Old Testament passages (with 8:35 cf. Mt. 10:39=Lk. 17: 
33; with verse 37 Ps. 49:8, and with verse 38 Mt. 10:32 f.—Lk. 
12:8 f.). In addition Mark has appended after 9:1 a vision-in- 
terpretation corresponding to the vision of the Baptism, which 
interprets under the conventional forms of Jewish midrash the 
significance of the title ‘‘Son of God.’’ 

The midrash of 1:10 f. is based on the passage Is. 42: 1-4, in the 
rendering employed in Mt. 12: 18-21.° In the present midrash the 
fundamental passage is Dt. 18: 15-19. Jesus by his glorification be- 
comes the prophet ‘‘like unto Moses.’’ It is not, however, the func- 

7 See the note above on p. 158. 


8 Tiés instead of mats is common in the Servant passages employed in Wisdom 
of Solomon. 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 165 


tion of Moses as law-giver which is here chiefly in mind, but (in 
accordance with current apocalyptic teaching) Moses who in com- 
pany with Elias redivivus returns from Paradise to usher in the 
transcendent kingdom of God. For in this new world the corporeal 
condition of the redeemed is not to be a “‘tabernacle’’ of perishable 
flesh, but a ‘‘building’’ of God, a glorified body, ‘‘from heaven.”’ 
Both these midrashoth, interpreting the meaning of the ensuing 
narrative as manifestations respectively of the Servant-Son and the 
Prophet-Son of Man, are vitally important to the Christology of 
Mark. They embody his essential conception of the career of Jesus 
which he undertakes to narrate. Both titles have a relation to the 
teaching of Paul, the former to Col. 1:13, 19, the latter to II Cor. 
3:7-5:10. This we must in due time examine. For the present we 
must limit ourselves to noting the fact'that the Transfiguration 
Vision is not composed by Mark, but incorporated from some source 
wherein midrash was understood, and which made intelligible the 
conceptions of Jesus as Isaian Servant, as Prophet like unto Moses, 
or as the Son of Man who brings in the conditions of Paradise. 

In Mk. 9: 2-10 the conceptions are so alien as to be unintelligible 
to minds unfamiliar with Jewish modes of thought and current 
apocalypse. Moreover 9:11 ff. does not continue the Transfigura- 
tion episode. On the contrary it is almost irreconcilable with it, 
giving a different answer to the question of the preliminary Coming 
of Elias. It continues the Encouragement to share the Martyrdom 
of Jesus in View of Ultimate Glory (8:31-9:1), especially the 
promise that some of the by-standers ‘‘shall not taste of death”’ 
before the Coming. This peculiar expression unavoidably recalls 
current belief concerning ‘‘the men which were taken up, which 
have not tasted death from their birth,’’ that is, Enoch (according 
to others Moses) and Elias. According to II Esdras 6:28 the last 
survivors of the old order, after the great tribulation, are to see 
“the men which have been taken up (translated), the men which 
have not tasted death from their birth.’’ They are denizens of Para- 
dise who prepare the world for the new order. After the promise 
of 9:1 that the Manifestation will come before some of the by- 
standers have ‘‘tasted death’’ the question of the disciples is most 
natural ‘‘ How is it that the scribes say that Elias must first come ?’’ 
(9:11). After the questioners have just seen Moses and Elias it is 
most unnatural. The idea that John the Baptist is Elias belongs to 
the evangelist. The Vision of Moses and Elias is therefore a foreign 
importation. It is made indeed by Mark himself, but is not digested 
and assimilated. 

A further addition made by Mark in the interest of his own 


166 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


eschatological expectations is the story of the Healing of the Epi- 
leptic (9:14-29). The introductory setting (verse 14), importing 
‘“multitude,’’ ‘‘scribes,’’ and ‘‘disciples’’ regardless of the supposed 
circumstances of Jesus’ retirement, shows that the incident is dis- 
placed. Again the anecdote (in itself considered) bears simply the 
same lesson of ‘‘faith’’ as the group 5: 21-43 and the Healing of the 
Paralytic (2:1-5, 11 f.). The fact that it is here by adaptation 
only is further evidenced by Mark’s great elaboration of the 
symptoms (cf. 7: 32-37; 8: 22-26), particularly the employment of 
the characterization ‘‘dumb and deaf spirit’’ (cf. 7:32, 37 and Is. 
29:18), in spite of the fact that epilepsy is the complaint. Sym- 
bolic use is also indicated by the choice of the phrase ‘‘cast him into 
the fire and into the waters’’ (cf. Ps. 60:12). As in the two pre- 
ceding healings (7: 32-37; 8: 22-26) the story is applied to unbe- 
lieving Israel, the ‘‘mountain’’ of unbelief against which the 
Church in Apostolic times struggled in vain, but which it expected 
to be removed by the returning Christ. The ‘‘spirit of stupor’’ 
(cf. Mk. ‘‘dumb and deaf spirit’’) cast upon Israel (Rom. 11: 8) 
would ultimately be withdrawn (Rom. 11:26). In. the meantime 
Israel’s condition is expressed in the phrase: ‘‘The more part said 
‘He is dead.’ ’’ Forbearance with this ‘‘unbelieving generation’’ is 
the attitude taught by Jesus (verse 19).° By appending at the close 
the Q saying on Mountain-moving Faith (Mt. 17: 20f.=Lk. 17:5 f.) 
Matthew shows that he appreciates this application of the story, 
perhaps because he knows the connection apart from Mark. 

After thus presenting his religious lesson (Jesus the Crucified 
Redeemer who Overcomes finally even Israel’s Unbelief), Mark at- 
taches the Discourse on Receiving versus Stumbling (9: 30-50) of 
whose composition we have already spoken.*® The group which fol- 
lows on Rank and Reward in the Kingdom (10:138-45) forms a 
consecutive series, duplicating some elements of the Discourse, as 
already shown. The incident of Bartimaeus which closes it (10: 46- 
02) is obviously transitional, leading over to the scenes in Jeru- 
salem. Whatever the historical values, it is not for the sake of these 
that Mark introduces it. He is still thinking in terms of Israel’s 
blindness (cf. 7:31-37 and 8:22-26) and applying the story to 


9 The primitive Church directed that its special fasting and prayer should be 
‘*for unbelieving Israel’? (Const. Apost. xii-xix.: ‘‘When ye fast, pray for 
those who are perishing. . . . Do it on account of your brethren . . . entreating 
on behalf of the people of destruction. Pray to God that he will turn Israel back 
again.’’ Cf. Epist. Apost. in Schmidt-Wajnberg Exe, III, T.u.U. XLIII (1919), 
on fasts for ‘‘ disobedient Israel’’). 

10 Above, p. 144 ff. 


OUTLINE OF THE MINISTRY 167 


Jesus’ reception as ‘‘Son of David.’’ Little if anything can be in- 
ferred from the parallels as to the source of the anecdote. Possibly 
somewhat more might be gathered regarding the source of the pre- 
fixed logion on Divorce (10: 2-12), which appears in the Q form in 
Mt. 5:31 f.=Lk. 16:18. It has little real relation to the group on 
Rank and Reward in the Kingdom, and appears to owe its inter- 
jection here to the anti-Jewish animus of Mark. As in verses 17-22 
obedience to the Mosaic commandments is declared good but in- 
sufficient for ‘‘eternal life,’’ so here Mosaism is shown as man-made 
(cf. 7:8 ‘‘the tradition of men’’), God having enjoined a higher 
law ‘“‘from the beginning of the creation.’’ The appended private 
explanation to the Twelve (verses 11 f.) is in the editorial manner 
of Mark. Its conformity to Roman (not Jewish) law is commonly 
cited as an indication of the editor’s environment. 

In the so-called Peraean section of Mark (8: 27-10:52) we have 
thus the same phenomena of composition as elsewhere, a funda- 
mental outline presumably Petrine, with large admixture of Q ma- 
terial in radically adapted form, the doctrinal standpoint being 
ultra-Pauline, or (to employ the term suggested in the Commen- 
tary) Paulinistic. Other critics will doubtless differ from our ex- 
planation of sources, meaning, and adaptation. It will probably not 
be denied, however, by competent judges that there are phenomena 
of duplication, displacement, and adaptation sufficient to prove that 
the material of this section also is not in its primary condition, but 
stands at a remove of several stages from apostolic eye-witnesses. 
It is this demonstration which at present we have chiefly in view. 


CHAPTER XIV 
THE NEW PASSOVER 


In the closing section of the Gospel the thread of authentic narra- 
tive is deeply buried under successive strata of religious story, told 
for purposes of edification. We have seen in our discussion of the 
discourse material that sections such as the Eschatological Dis- 
course, the Parable of the Usurping Husbandmen, and the Woes on 
the Seribes, rest upon Q material (embodied in the Special Source 
of Luke) in combination with Old Testament passages. We shall 
find, as we now come to consider the composition of the narrative 
elements i in the same section, that similar account can be given of 
the superimposed narrative material. The nucleus of primitive 
tradition was of course that of the Supper (I Cor. 11: 23). 

1. For such additional analysis of the section closing with the 
allegory of the Usurping Husbandmen as may be required after our 
discussion of this discourse* we may be permitted to refer to the 
Commentary (p. 155). Critics in general will admit that the his- 
torical groundwork here must be the coup d’état of Jesus in taking 
control of the temple to make it ‘‘a house of prayer,’’? together with 
the reaction of the authorities, who as yet are unable to overcome 
Jesus’ popular support. We have no proof that the Source con- 
tained an account of the Purging of the Temple, but as shown in 
the Commentary (p. 164) a paragraph relating the reaction of the 
authorities to some aggression of the sort, and Jesus’ reply to their 
challenge appears in fuller form in Q (Mt. 21: 28-82=Lk. 7: 29 f.; 
15: 11-382). Priority is clearly on the side of this source as against 
Mark. 

The superimposed material in this section of Mark consists of (1) 
an elaboration of the Triumphal Entry (11:1-10) ; (2) the Episode 
of the Barren Fig Tree (12-14, 20-25); (3) the allegory of the 
Usurping Husbandmen (12: 1-12). Of (38) we have already spoken. 
For (1) the basis seems to be the Q passage Mt. 23: 839=Lk. 18: 35 
(Jerusalem welcoming those who ‘‘come in the name of the Lord’’) 
in combination with Zech. 9:9 LXX* and the Passover Psalm (Ps. 


1 Above, p. 148 f. 

2 Mark shows his Gentile interest and his knowledge of Scripture by adding 
‘“for all the Gentiles’? ; cf. the parallels and Jer. 7: 11. 

3 The origin of the statement that no man had ever sat upon the colt brought 
to Jesus (Mk. 11: 2) appears to be the LXX rendering of Zech. 9: 9 (véov rAdov, 
‘fan unbroken colt’’). 


THE NEW PASSOVER 169 


118: 25 f.). The substratum is unquestioned. It is even self-evident. 
Jesus undoubtedly entered Jerusalem with a company of Galileans 
shortly before Passover 30 a.v. He may very well have ridden on 
an ass. But Jn. 12:16 is quite explicit in its witness that no special 
meaning was seen in his manner of entry until the later period of 
apologetic. It is significant also that no reference is made to the 
Triumphal Entry when effort is being made some days later to find 
evidence on which to secure from Pilate a condemnation of Jesus 
as a messianistic agitator. The elaboration of this scene belongs, 
therefore, to the secondary developments of the story. If there be 
real connection with Q it is of the same type as other Markan 
elaborations frequently noted. 

The Barren Fig Tree (11: 12-14) has already been sufficiently 
characterized as a typical Markan transformation into prosaic fact 
of Q symbolism. The Special Source of Luke (Lk. 13: 6-9) has the 
same lesson in the form of parable. In verses 20-25 a queue of logia 
is appended. As in 4: 21-25 and 9: 30-50 one imported logion seems 
to attract another. On the Sequel to the Cursing of the Fig Tree 
(verses 20-25) we may quote the Commentary (p. 162) : 


This agglutination of Q material seems to be the work of a later editorial 
hand than 11: 12-14, which is really complete in itself. Even the language 
(rapaxphua in Mt. 21:19, 6 rarhp dwar 6 év Trois odpavots, ver. 25) 1s entirely for- 
eign to Mark. The editor’s interest has no relation to the symbolism for the 
sake of which 11: 12-14 is introduced at this point of the story (Jerusalem’s 
visitation). He has in mind simply a lesson for wonder-workers. The lesson 
is similar to that of the Faith series (4: 35-5: 43; 9: 14-29), and in the Q 
form (Mt. 17: 20=Lk. 17: 3-6) actually follows (at least in Matthew) 
the final incident of that series. 


As in 4:21-25 Q logia appear superimposed on material already 
secondary. 

2. Brief analysis has already been given of the section prelimi- 
nary to the Eschatological Discourse, beginning at Mk. 12: 13-34 
with a series of Questions of Pharisee, Sadducee, and Scribe, and 
supplemented at the close with (1) a Question of the Christ (12: 
35-37) ; (2) a Denunciation of the Scribes (38-40); and (8) the 
Widow’s Mites (41-44). The Questions of Pharisee, Sadducee, and 
Scribe cannot be traced to any known source, but have been widely 
recognized as forming an erratic block.* The argument for the 
Ascension in 12:35-37 based on Ps. 110:1 gives Pauline Chris- 
tology (cf. Rom. 1:4) developed on the basis of an Old Testament 
proof-text already utilized by Paul in briefer allusion, precisely as 
in 4:11 f., and 7:7. For this and other reasons set forth in the 


4 So, e.g., in Wendt’s Lehre Jesu, I, pp. 28 ff. 


170 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Commentary this appended fourth question may be ascribed to 
Mark personally. The Denunciation of the Scribes (38-40) is best 
accounted for as an abstract from the corresponding Q discourse. 
As regards the Widow’s Mites (41-44) our only means of judging 
its derivation is the close affinity of the sentiment displayed in it 
to the Special Source of Luke, in which women in general, but 
especially poor women, widows, and outcasts, play a leading part, 
appealing to the reader’s sympathy. Matthew admits but a single 
instance of this type, the Anointing in Bethany (Mk. 14: 3-9=Mt. 
26: 6-13=Lk. 7: 37b, 38b, 46).° But in Mk. 14:9 this story is ac- 
companied by a solemn adjuration against omission. 

So far as its elements can be traced the composition of this sec- 
tion of Mark thus shows the characteristics already noted. We find | 
a supplementary use of Q material coupled with Old Testament 
passages under Pauline (or Paulinistic) doctrinal influence. 

3. The thread of authentic narrative in the story of the Betrayal, 
Cross, and Resurrection can fortunately be identified by references 
of Paul. To the Betrayal (Mk. 14: 1-11), and the story of the Sup- 
per (22-25) referred to in I Cor. 11: 23-25, we may doubtless add, 
as surely based to some extent on Peter’s own narration, Geth- 
semane and Peter’s Denial (14: 29-50, 54, 66-72). We can have less 
confidence in the account of the Preparation of the Passover (14: 
12-16), the Prediction of Betrayal (17-21), and of Manifestation 
in Galilee (28), and especially the description of the trial scene 
before the Sanhedrin (53b, 55-64). These four addenda are lacking 
in authentication by any outside witness, and in some cases (nota- 
bly the last) give evidence of Markan composition on the basis of 
Lukan source-material. 

The Anointing in Bethany (14: 3-9) seems to be introduced as 
the motive for Judas’ Betrayal. The story is certainly based on 
authentic tradition. But in Mark the connection is obscured in two 
ways. (1) Mk. 1: 1-138 describes a messianic anointing through the 
baptism of John as Elias redivivus. This displays the true sig- 
nificance of the present more primitive story. Only in the sense of 
a messianic anointing of Jesus as Son of David can the woman’s 
tribute be understood. This also explains Jesus’ gentle but tragic 
transformation of the meaning: ‘‘Not for a throne, but for the 
tomb.’’ Jesus had similarly turned the point in the case of Peter’s 
Confession. Mark takes no interest in this evidence of the woman’s 
faith in Jesus as Son of David, hence the reader is also apt to miss 
the point. (2) The betrayal is thought of as if the authorities were 


5 With Matthew’s cancellation of stories in praise of feminine devotion cf. 
the fragments of Ev, Egypt. in Preuschen’s Antilegomena, p. 2. 


THE NEW PASSOVER 171 


at a loss where to find Jesus. This is shown to be wrong by verse 49. 
What the rulers wanted was evidence to convict Jesus before Pilate 
of designs of rebellion. Judas could meet their need by attesting his 
having been anointed ‘‘king of the Jews.’’ As such'he could be, and 
was in reality, brought to execution. The story of the Anointing in 
Bethany appears thus in Mark as an erratic block of older material, 
kindred in sentiment to the Special Source of Luke. Its implication 
of secret conspiracy on the part of the rulers is surely historical, 
and is borne out by occasional references even in Mark (14:8 f.) 
which fail to harmonize with the rest. We may therefore discount 
Mark’s scenes of public condemnation. Anti-Jewish apologetic aims 
to place upon the Sanhedrin officially the responsibility for con- 
demnation of the claims of Jesus as ‘“‘blasphemy.’’ Hence Mark’s 
representations of formal trial on this issue. The historic fact was 
a ‘‘delivering up’’ to Pilate kept as secret as possible. 

From its emphasis on a non-Markan conception we have inferred 
that the Anointing in Bethany belongs to an older source (the 
Special Source of Luke?), and appears in Mk. 14: 3-9 by adapta- 
tion only. Incorporation from some extraneous source is made more 
probable by the fact that the incident appears quite otherwise dated 
in Jn. 12: 1-8, and in this case the dating explains the significance 
attached. Epiphanius (Haer. L. 3) tells us that the observance of 
the ‘‘setting apart of the Passover lamb,’’ fixed in the Law for the 
tenth day of Nisan, was still practiced by the Quartodecimans, 
who set apart the sacrificial lamb ‘‘from the tenth day, recognizing 
the name of Jesus on account of the iota’’ (that is, the initial letter 
of the name Jesus, which had the numerical value of ten). Quarto- 
deciman practice is represented in the Fourth Gospel, and the 
representation of Jn. 12:1 that ‘‘six days before the Passover 
Jesus came to Bethany’’ means that on the evening of that date, 
which would begin the tenth of Nisan, the supper and anointing 
(related now substantially as in Mark) took place. Jesus is thus 
anointed to be the Lamb of God on the appointed day, just as (in 
John) his crucifixion also takes place at the very hour when the 
Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the temple. The dating may 
be as unreliable in one case as the other, but the effort to date this 
incident on the tenth of Nisan gives welcome light on the sig- 
nificance found in it.® 

8 Cf. the ‘‘six days’’ of preparation for the revelation on ‘‘the holy mount’’ 
Mk, 9: 2=Mt. 17: 1. The interval is Jewish (Ex. 20:9; 24:16) and was fol- 
lowed by many churches in Easter observance. The ‘‘six days’’ of fasting in 
preparation for the celebration of the Easter Passover are mentioned by 


Dionysius of Alexandria in his letter to Basilides (Routh, Reliquiae, iii., pp. 
223 ff.). 


172 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


4. We come thus to a strange peculiarity of Mark, responsible 
for centuries of controversy in the Church. This Gospel presents a 
series of datings in its story of Passion Week, such as are given 
nowhere else, and are only partially transcribed by Matthew and 
Luke. These dates can have no other object than to determine with 
precision, even to the hour of the day, the successive events com- 
memorated by ritual observance in the sacred three-day period of 
fasting and feasting which covered Good Friday and Haster.’ 

The remarkable fact is that while the fundamental narrative of 
Mark itself clearly implies a dating like that of the Fourth Gospel, 
which corresponds to Quartodeciman observance, the Gospel of 
Mark in its present form superimposes upon this a different chrono- 
logical system. Mark as we have it represents that the farewell 
supper in the upper room was the actual Passover, not (as the 
fourth evangelist and the internal evidence implies) the regular 
supper of the preceding day. The reader is thus compelled to as- 
sume that the Jewish rulers, in spite of their fears of “‘a tumult 
at the feast,’’ after all brought Jesus to the cross on the very day 
they most desired to avoid, and that repeated violations of the 
sanctity of the paschal sabbath were committed; not merely by the 
Sanhedrin, but by chance-comers such as Simon of Cyrene, and 
even by Jesus and the Twelve, who go forth to the Mount of Olives 
regardless of the Passover law that none ‘‘go forth from the door 
of his house until the morning.’’ The self-contradictions of Mark’s 
own story, combined with the testimony of the Fourth Gospel and 
the practice of the Eastern churches since the days of Paul, have 
now brought many leading critics to the recognition of the arti- 
ficiality of these Markan datings. We may therefore refer to the 
Commentary for all detail, merely pointing out here that the scheme 
of Easter observance implied in Mark’s datings is the Western, or 
Roman, which already differed from the Eastern so early as when 
Polyearp visited Rome in 154 a.p. Polyearp would not yield his own 
mode of observance which was based on the day of the (lunar) 
year. He claimed personal knowledge that this had been the method 
followed by ‘“‘the Apostles.’’ But his host, Anicetus of Rome, 
claimed equal antiquity for Western observance, which reckoned 
by week-days and the solar year, making a particular Sunday after 
vernal equinox® the Feast of the Resurrection, and placing the 


7See the subdivision by ‘‘watches’’ in 14:12, 17 (followed by the Vigil, 
26-52), 72; 16:'1,,25, 33, 84/4316: 2, 

8 The reckoning of the Cappadocian and some Gallican churches adopted the 
Julian equinox itself, March 25, as the date of the annual feast, just as Christmas 
is still observed on the Julian winter solstice. 


THE NEW PASSOVER 173 


great Fast on the Friday before. Quartodecimans (including all 
the churches of Asia) celebrated the Resurrection Feast’ on the day 
of the Jewish Passover, Nisan 14, no matter on what day of the 
week it might fall, commemorating on this single day the death and 
resurrection together. The preceding fast varied in length in vari- 
ous regions, but was equally independent of the day of the week. 
How far back of the year 154 this difference between East and 
West extended we cannot determine. But it is manifest that the 
original and apostolic practice must have been as the Asiatics 
claimed, a continuation of the Jewish Feast of Redemption in a 
new and higher sense, so that as Paul himself suggests in I Cor. 5: 
6-8 and 15: 20, Christ’s crucifixion could be equated with the purg- 
ing out of the old leaven and slaying of the lamb on Nisan 14, his 
resurrection “‘on the third day, according to the Seriptures’’ with 
the uplifting of the sheaf of Firstfruits to God on Nisan 16.1° The 
innovation lies with the Roman Gospel, which would do away al- 
together with the Jewish feast, substituting another not at all based 
on the sacred cycle of lunations so vitally important to oriental 
religion, but based primarily on the feasts and fasts of the week." 
In this case at least Mark is more ‘‘Pauline’’ than Paul. We only 
marvel that Matthew and Luke remain at best ambiguous, while 
even the Fourth Gospel does not venture on more than ‘‘tacit’’ 
correction. To second-century readers this characteristic feature of 
Mark might in itself suffice to prove its Roman origin. To a still 
earlier generation it might be ground enough for the charge that 
the writer’s order was incorrect, and lacked the supervision of an 
apostolic hand. 

9 The recent discovery of the Epistola Apostolorum has fortunately set for- 
ever at rest the improbable suggestion of some Tibingen critics that Quarto- 
decimans celebrated the institution of the Supper (!). 

10 So, explicitly, the Paschal Chronicle: ‘‘ Christ, the true Lamb, was sacri- 
ficed for us at the feast of the Passover ordained by the Law (Lev. 23:5) and 
rose the third day, when the priest was required to offer the wave-sheaf of 
Firstfruits (Lev. 23: 11).’’ 

11 We may probably ascribe to this same ritual interest two other singu- 
larities of Mark. (1) In 2: 20 the particular day (év éxelvy ry juépa) for Chris- 
tian fasting is appointed, viz., that in which the Bridegroom is taken away, i.e., 
Friday, instead of the semi-weekly Jewish fasts. Cf. Lk. 18:12 and Didaché, 
viii. (2) Mark habitually refers to the resurrection as ‘‘after three days’’ con- 
trary to primitive tradition (I Cor. 15:4). He thus causes great confusion to 
later interpreters. The period is probably named from ritual observance (fasting 
Friday and Saturday, feasting Sunday) according to practice at Rome in the 
mysteries of Attis celebrated there for centuries at the same season in the same 


fashion (Mar. 23-24 fasting, Mar. 25, the Hilaria). Later practice added 
Wednesday as the day of the Betrayal to the fast of Friday. 


174 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


It was not primarily on the Gospels that the Asiatic Quarto- 
decimans based their argument, but even more on immemorial ob- 
servance, as testified by Polyearp, who (according to Irenaeus) had 
kept the Christianized Passover ‘‘with John the disciple of our 
Lord and the other Apostles with whom he had associated.’’ Sec- 
ondarily it was based on ‘‘the Gospels,’’ the Fourth being certainly 
included, but the issue being joined over ‘‘Matthew’’ (!). Now 
moderns see clearly enough (perhaps more clearly than the evidence 
warrants) that Matthew follows the dating of Mark. But the an- 
cients were by no means universally of this opinion. It is no other 
than the immediate successor of Papias in the see of Hierapolis, 
Claudius Apollinarios, who in a fragment quoted by the Paschal 
Chronicle defends his Quartodeciman practice against the charge | 
that ‘‘Matthew’’ teaches otherwise. Certain ignorant and disputa- 
tious persons allege, says Apollinarios, 
that the Lord ate the Passover lamb together with his disciples on the four- 
teenth, and himself suffered on the great day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 
15); and they declare that Matthew reports the matter according to their 
understanding of it. Thus their understanding is in disagreement with the 
Law (of Moses), and according to them the Gospels (Matthew and John) 
are at variance. 


It thus appears that Apollinarios, a representative bishop of the 
churches of Asia about 170 A.p., interpreted Mt. 26:2 and 17 in 
accordance with his own Asiatic ritual and the Fourth Gospel. If 
the discrepancy had already been observed in the time of his prede- 
cessor Papias, for whom also Matthew was authoritative, it was 
doubtless similarly met. Papias interpreted Matthew in agreement 
with Quartodeciman practice, which was in turn reflected in John. 
The disagreement of Mark may have been overlooked; but if ob- 
served it will have been ascribed to Mark’s lack of apostolie 
‘‘order.’’ The Fourth Gospel was not brought into the controversy 
until advocates of Matthew began to allege disagreement between 
the two. Modern critics have expressed unnecessary surprise at this 
interpretation of Matthew, and an inability to understand how the 
harmonization was effected. But the Paschal Chronicle, which in 
general reflects the views of its quoted authorities, shows clearly 
enough by inserting the words of Mt. 26:1 in verse 17 how at least 
the later Quartodecimans argued. Their reading was ‘‘The disciples 
asked him . . . Behold, after two days cometh the Passover; where 
wilt thou, ete.,’” instead of ‘‘On the first day of Unleavened Bread 
his disciples asked him, etc.’’ Their predecessors may have done 
less violence to the text, but certainly came to the same result. Per- 
haps they took the ‘‘first day of Unleavened Bread’’ in Mt. 26:17 - 


THE NEW PASSOVER 175 


P] 


as a designation for the prefixed ‘‘eighth day’’ of which we learn 
from Josephus (Ant. II, xv. 1). At all events in combining Jn. 11: 
53-12: 1 with Mt. 26:2, 17 the Chromcle (Dindorf, 1832, p. 409 f.) 
states explicitly : 


It is manifest, therefore, that this (the supper) was not at the time of 
the Passover itself, but when it was to take place ‘after two days’; and be- 
cause he (Jesus) did not keep the Passover on the fourteenth day, but in- 
stituted the symbolic supper in advance of this, at the time when was held 
the Sanctification of Unleavened Bread (that is, the so-called Kiddush of 
the feast on the eve of its observance), and the Preparation of the feast, 
we find him (in the narrative) distributing to the disciples not sacrificial 
flesh, nor unleavened bread (the mazzoth prescribed for the Passover meal), 
but leavened bread and a cup (of wine). At this time he also washed the 
disciples’ feet.!? . 


Exegetically this may or may not be fair to Matthew. At least the 
matter is far less one-sided than moderns commonly assume, since 
Matthew, even in our own text, significantly cancels the decisive 
words of Mk. 14:12 ‘‘when they sacrificed the Passover’’ (6re ro 
nacxa é€Ovov). But historically the statement of the Chronicle is 
correct. The farewell supper of Jesus with the Twelve was not the 
Passover, but the Sanctification (AKiddush) of Unleavened Bread, 
precisely as the Quartodecimans declare, the reasons which they 
give being also sufficient to prove the point, apart from other con- 
siderations. According to the rule of the “‘sanctification’’ of feasts 
and sabbaths called kiddush, the head of the household takes bread, 
blesses and breaks it, and distributes to the household. Then he 
takes a cup of wine, gives thanks, using the very formula ‘‘this 
fruit of the vine,’’ and distributes this also. Next follows an ablu- 
tion (in Jn. 13:4f. a washing of feet). Thereafter the meal 
proceeds. Even the difference of order characteristic of early 
Church observance, some placing the cup before the bread, others 
the bread before the cup, is also characteristic of Synagogue ob- 
servance of the kiddush. As the Quartodecimans acutely observe, 
the Synoptists themselves recognize that at the supper which they 
describe Jesus does not distribute the flesh of the Passover lamb 
(which would have corresponded so much more closely with his 
body), but leavened bread (dpros), which was not tolerated in the 
house after midday of the fourteenth. The ritual also is far from 


AF Xov ody bri ov Kata Tbv abrov xpbvovy, ad\Aa MédAOrTOS EcecOar TOD mdayxa peTa SVO 
nuépas. dre 5é od KaTa Thy 1d’ érerédecev Th WadgxXAa, AAA pd TOUTOU TO TUTLKOY éTédETEV 
detrvov, bre Kal 6 ayiacuds TOV afvuwv Kal H mpoeroiuacia THs EoprHs éylvero, ebplaoxerat 
Tots uabnrats ueTadidovs od} Oiuaros ovde ASduwy, AAN dprov kal mornplov. bre Kal TOV wabn- 
Ta arévperv Tods wodas KTH. 


176 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


corresponding to that of Passover, with its five ceremonial cups, 
its sauce of bitter herbs, its recital of the story, and its warning 
not to go forth from the door of the house until the morning. It 
does correspond exactly with the ritual for the eve of Passover 
(9 mpoeropacia). The Quartodecimans of the churches of Asia may 
therefore have done violence to the meaning (perhaps even to the 
text) of Matthew. But historically they and the Fourth Gospel (a 
product of their own region, where since the days of Paul the feast 
had been celebrated as a ‘‘Passover of the Lord’’) were entirely 
in the right. The disturbing influence comes from the Gospel of 
Mark with its Roman calendar and datings, and its anti-Jewish 
proclivities. Unfortunately for our purposes it is not possible to say 
how far back beyond the origin of Matthew and Luke this reflection | 
of divergent ritual at Rome can be carried. But certainly it can- 
not be easily ascribed to apostolic times. The seeds of this great 
separation through Rome’s resistance to the practice of ‘‘all the 
churches of the Hast,’’ can hardly have been sown ‘‘while Peter and 
Paul were preaching and founding the church at Rome.”’ 

5. We can devote but very brief space to the remaining phe- 
nomena of the story of Mark, its wide divergence from the Spe- 
cial Source of Luke, its apparent dependence, and (in most cases) 
inferior historicity. Notoriously Matthew in the Passion story fol- 
lows Mark almost verbatim, while Luke altogether subordinates 
Mark. Technically, then, the non-Markan material cannot be desig- 
nated . It is not “‘double-tradition’’ material. This does not imply 
necessarily a different origin from the Q material, but only that in 
most cases it is transmitted to us by only one of the two who else- 
where employ the source in common. In the Commentary this ma- 
terial is designated Ql. 

The Special Source of Luke has a very full account of the Insti- 
tution of the New Covenant (Lk. 22:15-38), accompanied as in 
Jn. 15-16 by a Farewell Discourse. In this account of the Supper 
the dominant note is not (as in the Pauline form which the a text 
inserts) the atoning sacrifice, but a note of rejoicing in assurance 
of the triumph-feast to be celebrated ‘‘in the kingdom of God.’’ It 
is a ‘Kucharist,’ or ‘Thanksgiving’ feast. Jesus, in parting from 
the Twelve, covenants to meet them at the banquet table of the New 
Jerusalem, the city ‘‘ whither the tribes go up to give thanks unto 
the name of Jehovah.’’ He promises that as they have been with 
him in his trials they shall also be with him in his glory, presiding 
as judges over Israel. For even so long ago as the days of Andreas 
of Caesarea it was perceived that the promise ‘‘Ye shall sit upon 


THE NEW PASSOVER 1iyy' 


thrones, Judging the twelve tribes of Israel’? (Lk. 22: 30=Mt. 20: 
28) is but an echo of Ps. 122:5: 

For there are set thrones for Reseapiant 

The thrones of the house of David. 
To make apparent the nature of this non-Markan account, and at 
the same time its relation to the Markan, the simplest method will 
be to set the two side by side, placing on the left those portions of 
Luke only which are not paralleled in Mark, and on the right the 


account of Mark. 


Lk. 22: 15-20 (8 text). 

15 And he said unto them: I have 
greatly desired [literally “With de- 
sire have I desired,” a Semitism] to 
eat this Passover with you before I 
suffer. 16 For I tell you I shall 
surely not eat of it again until it be 
fulfilled in the kingdom of God (ef. 
Mk. 25). 17 And he took a cup and 
gave thanks and said: Take this and 
divide it among yourselves; 18 for 
I say unto you, I shall surely no 
more drink from the ‘fruit of the 
vine’ from henceforth until the king- 
dom of God be come [cf. Mk. 25]. 
19 And he took a loaf and gave 
thanks and brake it and gave them, 
saying: This is my body.%% 

21 But lo, the hand of him that 
‘delivereth me up’ (Is. 53:12, 
LXX) is with me on the table. 22 
For the Son of Man goeth accord- 
ing to what hath been determined ; 
but woe unto that man through 
whom he is ‘delivered up.’ 23 And 
they began to dispute with one an- 
other which of them it was that 
should do this thing. 


Mk. 14: 22-25, 18-21. 


22 And as they were eating he 
took a loaf and blessed it, and brake, 
and gave to them and said: Take, 
this is my body. 23 And he took a 
cup and gave thanks, and gave to 
them, and they all drank of it. 24 
And he said unto them: This is my 
blood of the Covenant, which is 
shed on behalf of many. 25 Verily 
I say unto you, I shall no more 
drink of the fruit of the vine, until 
that day when I drink it new in the 
kingdom of God. 

(Mk. 18-21) 18 And as they were 
reclining at table and eating Jesus 
said, Verily I say unto you that one 
of you shall ‘deliver me up,’ ‘he 
that eateth with me’ (Ps. 41:19). 
They began to be grieved and to 
say unto him one after the other: 
It surely is not I? 20 But he said to 
them, It is one of the Twelve, even 
he that dippeth with me in the dish. 
21 For the Son of Man goeth, as it 
is written concerning him; but woe 
to that man through whom the Son 
of Man is ‘delivered up!’ It were 
good for that man if he had never 
been born. 


The story of Luke, taken by itself, and in the order in which 
Luke gives it, describes a preliminary address of Jesus; whether 
13 The a text inserts at this point the words of I Cor. 11: 24f.: ‘‘ which is 
given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after 


supper, saying: This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed on 
your behalf.’’ 


178 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


preliminary to the kiddush, whose ritual is followed, or to the 
Passover supper, is not clearly apparent. For the words ‘‘this Pass- 
over’’ may of course equally well refer to the repast upon the table, 
or that of the morrow for which the ‘‘Sanctification’”’ is prepara- 
tory. In this order Jesus, acting as the head of the house acts in 
the kiddush ritual, distributes the wine and the bread to the dis- 
ciples, declining himself to share in either,** because he must suffer 
before the coming Passover, and will eat of it with them again 
only in its more glorious counterpart, the Redemption feast of the 
Kingdom. He will not even share in the cup of “‘the fruit of the 
vine’’ because he looks to an immediate fulfilment of the promise 
of redemption. 

It is after these materials of the repast have been distributed, and 
while the disciples are eating, that the startling prediction is made 
of betrayal by one of the Twelve, a guest now sitting at the table. 
As Luke relates the story this brings the repast to a sudden end. 
‘“They began to dispute with one another which of them it was 
that should do this thing.’’ The discontinuance of the meal is a 
necessary consequence of Jesus’ appalling announcement. Mark, on 
the contrary, relates first in verses 18-21 that Jesus made it “‘as they 
were reclining at table and eating.’’ Afterward, in verses 22 ff., he 
goes on to relate the institution of the Supper ‘‘as-they were eat- 
ing,’’ precisely as if nothing had occurred to interrupt their repast. 
The transposition emphasizes the character of the rite as a memorial 
of Jesus’ death, but is psychologically impossible. In addition the 
substitution of a questioning of Jesus “‘man by man’’ for the 
simple statement that ‘‘they began to dispute with one another’’ is 
but the first step along a path of historical deterioration which leads 
Matthew to add next the specific statement: ‘‘And Judas who de- 
livered him up said: Surely it is not I, Rabbi? He saith to him, 
Thou hast said it,’’ and John to construct a scene in which the 
clause “‘he that dippeth in the dish with me’”’ (Mk. 14: 20) becomes 
a signal conveyed to Peter through the Beloved Disciple. Jesus now 
even impels Judas to his treason by a kind of Satanic sacrament 
(Jn. 13:26 f.). In their anxiety to show that Jesus foresaw and 
foretold all, our evangelists forget that they make the disciples 
knowingly permit the traitor to carry out his purpose unhindered. 

Doctrinally the contrast between the proto-Lukan and the 


14 Critics have observed that in the Lukan version of the Supper Jesus does 
not share the meal with his betrayer, and have questioned this as a later refine- 
ment. We may well ask rather whether it be not more true to fact. With such an 
announcement to make is it probable that Jesus would sit down to eat with the 
traitor? 


THE NEW PASSOVER 179 


Markan versions of the Institution of the Covenant is still more 
striking, recalling the rebuke of Paul to a certain element at 
Corinth who were disposed to celebrate the supper in quite too fes- 
tive a spirit, without ‘‘discriminating the Lord’s body,’’ and doing 
scant justice to the fact that the observance was a memorial of “‘the 
Lord’s death.’’ Like the observance prescribed in the Didaché, 
whose order it follows in placing the cup before the breaking of the 
bread, the proto-Lukan Supper is primarily a feast of thanksgiving 
for the coming Kingdom of David. In the Didaché this thanksgiving 
is twofold: (1) For the (present) kingdom (‘‘We thank thee for 
the vine of thy Servant David, which thou hast made known to us 
through thy Servant Jesus’) ;*° (2) For the (future) ‘‘gathering 
together of the Elect’’ (‘‘Like as this broken bread (xAdcya) was 
scattered (dueoKxopmicpevov) upon the mountains, and being gathered 
became one loaf, so gather thy Church from the ends of the earth 
into thy kingdom’’). Not a word appears of the atonement doctrine, 
unless the rare title ‘‘the Servant’’ applied to Jesus (but also ap- 
plied to David) be considered such. The passion is not even men- 
tioned. Forgiveness of sins does not appear at all, unless it be in the 
direction that none save the baptized be admitted. In this lturgy 
the salvation brought by Jesus is ‘“‘light and knowledge.’’ The 
proto-Lukan Covenant-Supper is of the same type. Jesus ‘‘cove- 
nants’’ (duariHeyor) the ‘‘kingdom’’ which his Father has ‘‘cove- 
nanted’’ to him. It is the kingdom of ‘‘David’’; for the reference 
to the “‘thrones of judgment’’ shows that Ps. 122:5 is in mind. 
Those who have endured with him are to reign with him (cf. II 
Tim. 2:12). ‘‘Seattered’’ now, and persecuted, they will be ‘‘gath- 
ered’’ as God’s ‘‘elect.’’ All these features are emphasized in the 
further course of the Lukan account; but of the Pauline conception 
of a communion with the Lord’s death there is no more trace than 
in the Didaché. At the utmost the utterance over the bread ‘‘This 
is my body’’ might be said to imply it. But in the absence of the 
phrase added by Mark ‘‘Eat ye all of it’? one may well query 
whether the symbolism intended is not more nearly represented by 
the liturgy of the Didaché than by Paul. Reunion in the kingdom 
is the theme: ‘‘ Ye shall eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.”’ 
In such a connection the Strife as to Who should be Greatest 
(verses 24-27) seems less incongruous. But can the Jewish-Christian 


‘ 


15 Cf, Jn. 15: 1-8. ‘‘Cleansing’’ (verse 2) is not by sacrificial atonement 
(Mt. 26: 28) but ‘‘by water and the word’’ (Eph. 5: 26). A similar warning 
against a magical interpretation of the Supper appears in the discourse on 
Bread from Heaven in Capernaum (Jn. 6: 41-63). 


180 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


rite of Thanksgiving for the ‘‘kingdom of David’’ be considered 
later than the Pauline? 

When the Lukan account of the Institution of the New Covenant 
is read by and for itself, without that tacit importation of outside 
estimony which it is so difficult even for the most critical inter- 
preter to escape, the perception comes with almost startling effect 
that the doctrine which to Paul was the very essence of the rite is 
totally absent. The Supper is not a memorial of ‘‘the Lord’s death.’’ 
The elements are not tokens of his body and blood ‘‘given on be- 
half of the many.’’ Forgiveness of sins plays no part in the matter. 
Christ is not a new ‘‘Passover sacrificed for us.’’ By eating and 
drinking the bread and wine disciples do not commemorate and 
participate in his sacrificial death. They simply express their faith 
in the greater feast of Redemption which they will celebrate with 
him in the kingdom covenanted by his Father. Surely it is no 
wonder that transcribers of the Lukan text earlier than 150 (for 
Justin in his Mirst Apology, Ixvi. 3 already quotes this emended 
form) should have felt it necessary to insert Paul’s version of the 
story. The a text borrows this practically verbatim from I Cor. 11: 
24 f., interpolating it after the words ‘‘This is my body’’ in verse 
19. What Mark has done is in effect the same. It is impossible to 
place side by side the true text of Lk. 22: 14-38 and Mk. 14: 17-25, 
reading each by and for itself, without seeing that Mark has ‘‘ Paul- 
inized’’ the story. 

But this is not all. There is unmistakable literary dependence, 
and the priority is unequivocally on the side of the Special Source. 
Mark is here secondary. Such expressions as ‘‘ This is my blood of 
the Covenant, which is shed on behalf of the many”’ belong to the 
literature of the Pauline and later Epistles (cf. Heb. 10:29; 138: 
20, ete.), and there are other marks of dependence.** Moreover 
apart from the immediate words of institution, where this relation 
appears indisputable, continual indications of the same relation of 
dependence appear in the context. Thus in Mk. 14: 21=Lk. 22: 22 
the ‘‘predetermination’’ (épurpevov; cf. Acts 2:23) of Messiah’s 
death is not distinguished from its ‘‘prediction.’’ Accordingly 
Mark declares that ‘‘The Son of Man goeth, even as (xa0ws) it is 
written of him.’’ In the Special Source, whose very essence is the 
doctrine of the suffering Servant, and which constantly reiterates 
the Isaian predictions ‘‘How that it was needful that the Christ 
should suffer,’? even so general a statement as this might be in- 
telligible, especially as reference is made almost immediately after 


16 Note the increased urgency against Judas, and the use of Ps. 41: 9 in verse 
18. In verse 21 we have the phrase of Eth. Enoch, xxxviii. 2. 


THE NEW PASSOVER 181 


(Lk. 22:37) to the fulfilment of the Scripture ‘‘He was reckoned 
with transgressors’’ (Is. 53:12). But Mark has scarcely a trace of 
reference to these prophecies. Where faint traces appear they either 
have the appearance of misplaced glosses (9:12b), or are unin- 
telligible (14: 49b).** Only on the supposition that he is reflecting 
some fuller presentation of the doctrine of the suffering Servant 
is it possible to understand Mark’s veiled and disconnected allu- 
sions."® | 

Almost exactly the same characterization would apply to the 
references of Paul to the same doctrine. Paul never directly ap- 
peals to the prophecy of Is. 53, though repeatedly (e.g., Rom. 4: 
25-5: 7; Phil. 2:5-11) one can detect it in the background of his 
thought. Fortunately Paul states explicitly that the doctrine was 
‘“‘received’’ by him from his predecessors in the gospel, among 
whom Peter stands preéminent. It is in fact fundamental in 
‘‘Petrine’’ tradition (I Pet. 2: 22-24; Preaching of Peter, Fragm. 
9, “‘But we, opening the books of the prophets which we had, found 

. . how all these things were written which it was needful for 
him to suffer’’). The relation of Mark to this element of Petrine 
tradition is secondary and remote. 

On the other hand the Special Source also has its own features 
of historical inferiority, particularly in the connected narrative. 
Its version of the Strife for Precedence (Lk. 22: 24-27; cf. Mk. 
10: 42-45) cannot historically stand in its present position, whether 
this setting be due to Luke or to the author of the source. A quarrel 
on such grounds may have logical connection but is hard to credit 
psychologically as a sequel to the announcement of the Betrayal. 
Also the coupler-verse (27) which connects it with the subsequent 
context indicates that something else preceded, perhaps in the 
nature of the foot-washing (Jn. 13: 3-11; but cf. I Pt. 5:5). Jesus 
has done nothing to justify the phrase ‘‘I stand among you (who 
recline at table) in the position of a servant’’ (dvaxetyevos, dvaxovar). 
This material, as we know, is paralleled elsewhere by Mark (Mk. 
9: 33-85=10: 41-45). Whether Luke or his source be responsible for 
its insertion here we have only to remove it to see that the remainder 
continues the original theme. What follows gives in fact the very 


17 The Servant doctrine appears in the two kindred verses Mk. 10: 45 and 
14: 24. But the phrase ‘‘for the many’’ is not distinctively Isaian (Moses at 
Horeb offering his life ‘‘for the justification (zechuth) of the many’’ is a 
favorite rabbinic theme). In both these instances also there is independent 
reason for regarding Mark as secondary. 

18 Among such may probably be reckoned the use of zapadiddvac instead of 
mpodidévar in all references to the Betrayal. The expression is from Is, 53: 12 
LXX, though Mark fails to quote. 


182 


THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


words of institution of the New Covenant according to a formula 
which seems to be reflected in the ancient liturgy quoted in II Tim. 


Pe B 


If we die with him, we shall also live with him: 
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: 
If we shall deny him, he also will deny us: 
If we are faithless, he abideth faithful; 
For he cannot deny himself. 


The material of the Special Source here falls into three parts, 
only the first two of which have anything to correspond even re- 


motely with Mark. 


Lk. 22: 28-34, 35-38. 


28 Ye are they that have endured 
with me throughout my trials; 
29 and I for my part covenant 
(d:a7lGeuar) unto you a kingdom, even 
as my Father hath covenanted unto 
me; 30 That ye shall eat (&6nTe) 
and drink at my table in my king- 
dom; and ye shall sit on thrones 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 


31 Simon, Simon, behold Satan 
hath asked and obtained leave to 
sift you like wheat. 32 But I have 
made entreaty on thy behalf that 
thy faith may not give out. And 
thou, when once thou art restored, 
establish thy brethren. 33 And he 
said, Lord, with thee I am ready to 
go even unto prison and death. 34 
But he said, I tell thee, Peter, the 
cock shall not crow this day till thou 
hast thrice denied that thou knowest 
me. 


Mk. 14: 26-31. 


(Combined in Mt. 19: 28 with Mk. 
10: 28 ff. in Matthean phraseology: 
28 Verily I say unto you, that ye 
who have followed me, in the re- 
generation when the Son of Man 
shall sit on the throne of his glory, 
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.) 

26 And when they had sung the 
[Passover] hymn they went out to 
the Mount of Olives. 

27 And Jesus saith to them: All 
of you will be stumbled: for it is 
written [Zech. 13:7]: I will smite 
the shepherd and the sheep shall be 
scattered. 28 But after I am raised 
up I will go before you into Galilee. 
29 But Peter said to him, Though 
all should be stumbled yet will not 
I. 30 And Jesus saith to him, Verily 
I say unto thee that thou today, this 
same night, before the cock shall 
have crowed twice wilt deny me 
thrice. 31 But he spake the more 
vehemently. Though I should die 
with thee, I will never deny thee. 
Likewise also said they all. 


As regards the first of these paragraphs it is probably needless 
to prove the priority of the Lukan form, since the material is 
clearly derived from the Second Source. This appears not merely 
from its duplication in Mt. 19: 28, where all but the last two clauses 
is Matthean, but from the recurrence again of the peculiar spelling 


THE NEW PASSOVER 183 


éo6w for éc6i» which we have observed already in Q.*° The logion is 
manifestly that of the Institution of the New Covenant, proving 
that this Source carried down the story to the passion itself. The 
phraseology and conceptions (the messianic banquet, sitting at the 
king’s table, II Sam. 9:7, the ‘‘thrones of the house of David,’’ 
Ps, 122:5) are strongly Jewish. We may compare the Semitism 
‘“desire with desire’’ of verse 15, and ‘‘Satan’’ of verse 31. 

The second paragraph is of utmost importance for our knowledge 
of the sequel as related in this source; for the Lukan source fore- 
casts not only the scattering of the flock (here a “‘sifting of Satan’’ 
in allusion to Job 1: 9-12, for which Mark substitutes a fulfilment 
of Zech. 13:7) but a rallying of them after the catastrophe. The 
rallying is not as in Mark through an appearance of Jesus in Galilee, 
but through Peter, who thus becomes the founder of the resurrec- 
tion faith (cf. Mt. 14: 28-33 and 16:17-19). From the testimony 
of Paul (I Cor. 15:5), and a subsequent allusion of the Special 
Source (Lk. 24:34) we know that such was the actual course of 
events. Peter did become the living stone on which the Church was 
built. But Mark substitutes another version of the origin of the 
faith, in which the leading part is no longer taken by Peter, but by 
Jesus in person. 

It is true that the actual carrying out of this predicted rallying 
of the flock by Jesus in Galilee fails to be related in Mark, on ac- 
count of the mutilated condition in which this Gospel has come 
down to us. But enough remains in 15: 40-16: 8 to show what the 
Roman evangelist substituted for the ‘‘manifestation to Peter’’ 
(Gal. 2:7 f.). This substitution itself is the most probable cause 
of the mutilation; for had it been due to mere accident it is in- 
eredible that the gap should not have been filled out in better agree- 
ment with the primitive tradition. 

Two traditions are here at variance. The mutilated Markan 
Resurrection Story, centering on the women’s report of the Empty 
Tomb, has become basic for the canonical Gospels in spite of the 
fact that it is completely ignored by Paul, and is out of gear with 
his apostolic epitome of the proofs. For the record of I Cor. 15: 1-11 
is given as no mere personal report made by Paul, but as the 
original common gospel, the account given by all the witnesses, 
with Paul or before him, ‘‘whether it were I or they.’’ Yet it has 
been superseded! No fact in the whole history of gospel transmis- 
sion is of such pregnant significance for the critic as this substitu- 
tion. No phenomenon in primitive Christian literature presents 
a problem more worthy of his study for its meaning and implica- 


19 Above, p. 156. 


184 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


tions than this displacement through a story of women who found 
the tomb empty, and received a message from angels for ‘‘the 
disciples and Peter,’’ of the apostolic Resurrection Gospel of how 
the risen Lord ‘‘appeared to Peter,’’ and ‘‘afterward (era) to the 
Twelve.’’ Only in Luke have we some remaining traces of the Mani- 
festation to Peter. Here, then, the Lukan Special Source represents 
the underlying authentic tradition; whereas the Markan substitute 
is relatively late, anti-Jewish, and post-apostolic. To this strange 
substitution, its purpose, occasion, sources, and probable date, we 
must recur at a later stage of our enquiry. For the present the rela- 
tion of the Passion story of Mark to this Special Source of Luke 
must continue to hold our attention. 

One can feel less confidence that the Lukan form of Peter’s Pro- 
test (verses 33 f.) is really from the Special Source. Its phraseology 
differs widely from the Markan, and there are many peculiarities 
of the story of the Denial, to which the Protest leads up, which Luke 
does not owe to Mark, such as the ministering angel, the sweat drop- 
ping like blood (verses 43 f. 6 text), and the healing of the wound 
of the high priest’s servant (verse 51). These and later additions 
such as the Citation before Herod (23: 6-16) easily prove that Luke 
is following a non-Markan source, even though in several cases it 
be Mark who displays the greater originality and authenticity in 
this part of his narrative. It might also be taken as suggestive of 
difference in source that whereas in Lk. 22:31 Jesus addresses 
Peter as ‘‘Simon,’’ in verse 34 he addresses him as ‘‘Peter.’’ 

On the other hand the Lukan narrative is historically preferable 
in the form of the prediction in verse 34 (‘‘before the cock crow’’), 
in the omission of the second and third coming to the sleeping 
disciples (Mk. 14: 39-42), in denying to the kiss of Judas the char- 
acter of a sign of identification given it by Mark, and especially in 
its description of the mockery of Jesus in the atrium of the high 
priest’s house. In the Lukan source the vulgar abuse is inflicted by 
a posse of slaves, who hold Jesus in detention until morning beside 
the fire they have kindled (Lk. 22:54 f., 63 f.). Mark introduces 
at this point an extraordinary replica of the Trial before Pilate 
(14: 59-66=15: 1-5), so that the whole Sanhedrin assembles in the 
middle of the night (an illegal time), needlessly takes upon itself 
the odium of an official condemnation of Jesus to death on the 
ground of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God, then dis- 
perses, then reassembles in the morning, all for the purpose of se- 
curing an execution which they know cannot be had on these 
grounds, but which they know can be obtained, and is obtained 
without any of this dreaded publicity, by merely handing over the 


THE NEW PASSOVER 185 


prisoner to Pilate as an agitator. To crown this aggregation of im- 
probabilities Mark ascribes the abuse of the prisoner to the mem- 
bers of the Sanhedrin (! ). At least the insertion of verses 55-64 has 
this effect, though the true remedy is easily seen to be the removal 
of the paragraph as a composition by the hand of Mark himself. 
Once the intrusive verses are removed the story takes the same 
simple and eredible form as in the Lukan source (Lk. 22: 63-65). 

A further paragraph peculiar to Luke follows directly on the 
Protest of Peter, and leads up to the story of the arrest of Jesus 
and wounding of the high priest’s servant. Lk. 22: 35-38 has the 
further interesting characteristic that it connects with the Q ma- 
terial both in retrospect and prospect. Moreover the retrospect is 
not of Luke’s creation, for it involves the blunder that words re- 
ferred to: here as uttered to the Twelve (verse 35) have been in- 
corporated by Luke in his Discourse to the Seventy (Lk. 10:4= 
Mt. 10:9 f.). It predicts a going forth of the Twelve as sheep in 
the midst of wolves. Jesus’ condemnation as a ‘‘transgressor,”’ 
which only fulfils the Scripture (Is. 53:12), will be the signal for 
the storm of bitter violence to break upon their heads. If any now 
have two garments he would better use one to buy himself a sword. 
Intrinsically, and on authority (so far as it may serve) of Jn. 15: 
20-16: 14, we should take this to be the original location of the 
Warning of Persecution and Promise of the Paraclete, Lk. 12: 4-9, 
11 f.=Mt. 10: 16-33. It would give added significance to the paral- 
lel in the ‘‘faithful saying’’ from I Tim. 2:11 concerning Confes- 
sion and Denial. But we must limit ourselves to the case in hand. 
The inference is not unwarranted that the Second Source is here 
still flowing, and that it included even Jesus’ parting words after 
the supper, warning of persecution, but with assurance of the 
Spirit’s help and of Confession before the Heavenly Judgment- 
seat for those who should confess Christ before men. Some of this 
material we have found incorporated by Mark in the Eschatological 
Discourse. The question naturally arises whether its intrinsic bear- 
ing and the evidence of the Fourth Gospel do not warrant us in 
holding that its earlier and more authentic setting was at the point 
where we find this introductory utterance in the Special Source of 
Luke. 

One cannot deal fairly with these two versions of the Night of 
Betrayal without recognizing that now Mark, now the Lukan source 
has the better claim to represent authentic Petrine tradition. The 
trait of the young man who fled naked (Mk. 15: 50-52) is certainly 
based on authentic tradition, though omitted by both later evangel- 
ists. The scattering to Galilee, so carefully cancelled by Luke, is 


186 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


almost certainly historical. Luke’s own material implies it (Lk. 24: 
36-43; cf. Jn. 21: 9-13). Unfortunately we cannot say whether its 
preservation is solely due to Mark or not. On the other hand the 
superiority of the Special Source in several features is also un- 
mistakable. Perhaps the phenomena would be best explained if this 
Source were assumed to be the basis on which the Markan narrative 
has been constructed—with the aid of direct Petrine tradition as a 
corrective. As in other instances we note the Pauline influence in 
the recasting of the Institution of the New Covenant, so that the 
sacred elements are made something more than mere tokens of the 
heavenly banquet. We now find the doctrine of vicarious atonement 
explicitly brought in by Mark, through an addition after the 
Thanksgiving over the Cup. Here the words are inserted: ‘‘ And 
he said unto them ‘This is my blood of the Covenant, which is shed 
on behalf of many’ ’’ (Mk. 14: 24; cf. 10:45). We also note the use 
of Scripture (Zech. 13:7) in Mark’s reconstruction of the Predic- 
tion of Sifting by Satan, though in this verse (14: 27) there is wide 
divergence from the LXX. Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:11, classic proof- 
texts for this evangelist, are combined in his scene of the Trial be- 
fore the Sanhedrin (14: 62). 


CHAPTER XV 
WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 


WE have seen reason to connect the fragmentary state in which 
the ending of Mark has come down to us with the singularity of its 
extraordinary departure from the primitive apostolic resurrection 
story on the one side, and from the implications of the Lukan source 
on the other. Originally it is certain that the common gospel was 
as Paul has summarized it in I Cor. 15: 1-11. Here the first mani- 
festation of the risen Christ is to Peter; where, or how long after 
the crucifixion, Paul does not state. For the rising ‘‘on the third 
day,’’ necessarily antecedent to the manifestations, is an inference 
from ‘‘Scripture’’ (probably Lev. 23: 5-11; cf. I Cor. 5:7; 15: 20, 
and Paschal Chronicle as above, p. 173). It was admitted to be un- 
datable.* ‘‘ Afterward’’ (era) and next in order, came a manifesta- 
tion to “‘the Twelve,’’ probably in the same locality as the appear- 
ance to Peter and in direct causal connection with it,? but not on the 
same occasion. The difference from the representation in Jn. 21, in 
the closing verses of Hv. Petri, in Doctrina Petri ap. Ignatius ad 
Smyrn, iii., and in Lk. 24: 36-43, as well as from the apparent im- 
plication of Mk. 16:7, should not be overlooked. In all of these 
‘“Peter and his company”’ (oi zepi Ilérpov) receive the manifestation 
together. In Lk. 24:34, which must be derived from a source inde- 
pendent of verses 36 ff., since the latter section ignores the previous 
manifestation (cf. verse 41 with 33 f.), the Pauline representation is 
implied. Peter’s experience is individual and personal, though the 
actual story of the manifestation has disappeared. It is also implied 
in the prophetic utterance of Jesus Lk. 22:32, of which we have 
spoken; and if (as conjectured in the Commentary, p. 83) Mt. 14: 
28-31 gives symbolic expression to the same “‘turning again’’ of 
Simon, this also must be reckoned in the same group. We distinguish 
accordingly from all subsequent forms a line of tradition of the 
highest possible authenticity, by which the cardinal event in the 
history of the faith was a separate appearance to Peter. The Markan 
merging of this appearance with that which according to Paul came 


1 So Dionysius ad Basilidem ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. 

2 According to Gal. 2: 7f. Peter received from the risen Lord at this time 
‘fan apostleship to the circwmcision.’’ This implies reconstitution of the disciple 
group; cf. Lk. 22: 32; Mt. 14: 32f.; 16: 17f.; Jn. 21: 1-6. 


188 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


‘‘next’’ to form a joint manifestation to ‘‘Peter and the rest’’ 
must be regarded as a secondary development, however early. 

The next appearance of the series recorded by Paul was to 
‘‘above five hundred brethren at once,’’ an occurrence which some 
decline to identify with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, 
on the ground that in Acts 2 nothing is said of a manifestation of 
‘‘the Lord.’’ The manifestation must be supposed nevertheless to 
have occurred at or near Jerusalem; not so much because Galilee 
could not have furnished at so early a date the requisite gathering 
of believers, as because Paul knows the proportion of those who 


‘«.“remain’’ to those who have ‘‘fallen asleep.’’ This knowledge he 


could not well have had in the case of the Galilean church. 

A second group is formed in the Pauline list by the last two ap- 
pearances antecedent to Paul’s own. “‘Afterward (ézera) he ap- 
peared to James; next («i7va) to all the apostles,’’ under which term 
we should perhaps include more than the original Twelve. The 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, which connects its “sacred story’ 
of Easter ritual (‘‘ And the Lord said, ‘Bring a table and bread,’ ’’ 
etc.) with an original appearance to James, at Jerusalem, who had 
fasted since drinking ‘‘the cup of the Lord,’’* shows that this line 
of tradition also had an independent origin. Already in Paul’s 
time these two groups were practically coalescent. .Jerusalem ac- 
cording to the Hv. Hebr. (fragm. 18 ap. Preuschen) was the place 
of the appearance to James; the appointment of ‘‘all the apostles’’ 
will have been its outcome. But we need concern ourselves only 
with the two forms of the Petrine tradition, noting that the more 
authentic and earlier form divides the occurrences into two separate 
appearances “‘to Cephas, then to the Twelve’’; whereas the later 
form, which also, like the Hv. Hebr., brings in the trait of ‘‘eating 
together’’ (Lk. 24:41 f.; Jn. 21: 9-18; Acts 1:4; 10:41), ignores 
the individual and primary appearance to Peter. The two accounts 
stand side by side in Lk. 24: 138-35 and 36-43; for in verses 33-35 
‘‘the eleven’’ are already convinced by the testimony of Peter; 
whereas in verses 36-43 they are still without an intimation of the 
resurrection until brought slowly to belief by Jesus’ own appear- 
ance. It is not the earlier and more authentic form which is presup- 
posed in Mk. 14: 27 f. and 16:7, but the later. 

A more striking discrepancy between the forms of the resurrec- 
tion tradition has reference to the locality. The Lukan representa- 
tion in both forms, as they now stand,‘ insists upon limiting the 

8 Probably we should read ‘‘since the Lord had drunk the cup.’’ 


4There is some suggestion of the scene in Galilee at the shore of the lake 
depicted in Jn, 21:1 ff. and Hv. Petri, in Luke 24: 42 f. (‘‘they gave him a 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 189 


manifestations to Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. To meet 
this conception Luke in 24:6 even changes the language of Mk. 
16:7 from ‘‘He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see 
him, as he told you’’ to ‘‘He is risen; remember how he told you 
while he was yet in Galilee.’’ Matthew, true to his method of close 
adherence to the passion story of Mark, follows Mark down to the 
end of the authentic text, and thence completes the story in ac- 
cordance with the implications, only altering the statement of Mk. 
16:8 that the women ‘‘said nothing to any man because they were 
afraid’’ to ‘‘ran with fear and great joy to bring his disciples 
word.’’ Next follows a duplicate. Mt. 28:9 f. is another adjustment 
of the story of the Women at the Sepulchre to the Appearance to 
Peter and the Eleven in Galilee, making the women really deliver 
the message. Verses 16-20 complete the story by reporting the final 
Appearance to the Twelve and the Apostolic Commission. Thus 
Matthew has no new material to add. He merely carries out (aided 
in vers. 9 f. by a previous attempt of the same nature) what was 
implied in Mark’s story. The so-called Shorter Appendix of Mark, 


And they (the women) briefly reported all things commanded them to 
Peter and his company. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to 
them, and from the East even to the West sent forth by them the holy and 
incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation 


is a construction of precisely similar character, an editorial piecing- 
out of Mark’s deficiency along the stereotyped line of the Galilean 
tradition. Jerusalem has no manifestations save the directions given 
to the women that Jesus will meet ‘‘Peter and his company’’ in 
Galilee. Matthew is still Galilean in its main resurrection story. 
The Longer Appendix (Mk. 16: 9-20) pursues a different line. 
It adjusts the Gospel to the Lukan tradition with its many appear- 
ances, all in Jerusalem and vicinity, including among the rest the 
appearance to Mary Magdalen from Jn. 20: 11-18. Its author knew 
the story of Jn. 20:11-18, perhaps all the Fourth Gospel except 
the Appendix. But if he knew the story of the appearance to ‘‘ Peter 
and his company’’ at the Lake of Galilee in Jn. 21 he deliberately 
omits it. He follows the rival, Jerusalem tradition. Thus the two 
second-century appendices to Mark attempt each to bring the muti- 
lated Gospel into line with a different tradition, the one locating 
the appearances exclusively in Galilee, the other locating them 
exclusively in Jerusalem and its environs. As usual the latest form 
of all is combination. The manuscripts which place the shorter 


piece of a broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them’’). If Galilee was 
the original scene of the story Luke has obliterated the reference. 


190 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


and longer endings side by side produce a result equivalent to the 
placing of the Appendix to John immediately after the appear- 
ances of Jn. 20, in spite of the unreconciled differences. In Ch. 20 
Jesus appears to the disciples, overcomes their doubts, and gives 
them their Apostolic Commission, Peter included. With 21:1 ff. 
the reader is suddenly transported back to a point where the dis- 
ciples are in Galilee, without their commission, and without the 
resurrection faith. The process begins therefore de novo with the 
manifestation, the breaking of fast, and the Apostolic Commission, 
in which special parts are now assigned to Peter and the Beloved 
Disciple. 

All these phenomena of later adjustment imperfectly carried out 
show clearly that the Markan-Matthean type of resurrection gospel | 
was not easily accommodated to the Lukan type, with its appear- 
~ances limited to Jerusalem. Ultimately both types were combined, 
leaving the major tasks of adjustment to the harmonizer. The dis- 
appearance of the original ending of Mark belongs probably to this 
period of rivalry; for the two methods of piecing-out still reflect 
the difference. The disappearance of the original ending was not 
due, however, to the lack of exemplars, but rather to their too great 
abundance. It disappeared for the same reason that the account of 
how “‘the Lord appeared to Simon”’ has disappeared. There were 
sO many improved versions, each requiring to be harmonized with 
some other, that in the end nothing else but ‘improved’ versions 
was left. The blank column left by the scribe of Vaticanus, our old- 
est manuscript, attests not his belief that the Gospel he was copying 
ended at this point; for in that case he would have used the blank 
space (as he does elsewhere) to begin the next Gospel. It attests, 
on the contrary, his perplexity as to which one of several rival 
endings should be adopted. Two centuries before the writing of 
Vaticanus, the same perplexity was felt, and perhaps even more 
keenly. The Lukan ending shows that the Markan account was far 
from satisfactory to Antiochian readers in its account of how the 
risen Lord was manifested to ‘‘ Peter and they that were with him’’ 
in Galilee. And there was good reason. In spite of the reiteration 
with improvements in Matthew, Paul’s statements show that even 
the original Mark cannot have been generally accepted. Once more 
this evangelist had been more Pauline than Paul. He had eliminated 
the ‘‘manifestation to Peter’’ by combining it with its sequel. The 
disappearance of Mark’s resurrection story in view of opposition 
is not, then, so inexplicable that we need invoke the ‘‘chapter of 
accidents.’’? The original ending of Mark was really ‘‘improved”’ 
out of existence. The course of ‘‘improvement’’ unfortunately did 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 191 


not lead back toward the truly apostolic record of I Cor. 15: 1-11, 
but forward toward Matthew. 

The question with which we are now concerned is the composition 
of Mark’s story of the crucifixion and resurrection, to see what re- 
lation it bears to earlier accounts. For we have already seen that it 
varies from the apostolic resurrection gospel in its account of how 
the tide was turned from despair to faith, and we may reasonably 
infer from previous indications of its attitude toward the Jerusalem 
church-leaders that the nature of its account of Peter’s restoration 
and the reconstitution of the Twelve made it unacceptable to later 
believers. It is probably reflected in Hv. Petri (end) and Jn. 21: 
1-14. But just as Luke has absorbed the few remaining traces of the 
Galilean tradition into his Jerusalem version, so the Markan was 
eventually absorbed. Matthew superseded it for followers of Gali- 
lean tradition, Luke for those who preferred that of Jerusalem. 

For the contradiction between the Jerusalem form of the resur- 
rection gospel represented in Luke, Jn. 1-20, and the Longer End- 
ing of Mark on the one side, and the Galilean, represented in 
Mark, Matthew, Jn. 21, the Hv. Petri, and the Shorter Ending 
on the other, is only a later stage of a contradiction already ap- 
parent (as we have seen)® between the sources of Luke. On the one 
side stood a Jerusalem tradition, largely based on the Isaian 
prophecy of the suffering Servant, wherein Peter was a central 
figure, but wherein also a large place was given to the women of 
the company. This we easily identify with the Special Source. It is 
known to us by similar traits in earlier portions of Luke, and is 
used by this evangelist in preference to Mark throughout the pas- 
sion story. As we have had repeated occasion to note, the Lukan 
Special Source is not unknown to Mark, though his use of it is far 
less docile than Luke’s. This source, in a form which we may 
designate A, agrees with Paul in presupposing an appearance to 
Peter individually as the turning point in the history of the faith. 
The manifestation to Peter is predicted in Lk. 22:32 and referred 
to as a past event in 24: 34, though the actual story of it has been 
cancelled so that its scene (Jerusalem? Galilee?) cannot be deter- 
mined. The main portion of Lk. 24, as of the preceding chapters, is 
derived from source A, with only occasional insertions from Mark. 
But Luke has also other non-Markan material. Over against A 
stands a later form of the tradition (source B), from which a por- 
tion is inserted almost regardless of its incongruity with the context 
in 24: 36-43. The relation here of A to B is similar to that between 
the two stories in Acts of the citing of Peter and John before the 


5 Above, p. 188. 


192 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


authorities (Acts 3: 1-4:31—5: 12-42). Both make the figure of 
Peter central, but the later parallel in both cases introduces leg- 
endary embellishments. B was at least closely parallel to A, perhaps 
only a later, expanded edition of it. Our problem is to determine 
the relation of Mark to these two Lukan sources, both of which pur- 
port to tell the story of Peter.® 

The connection of the later Lukan source (B) with the mass of 
later resurrection narratives of the Galilean type hardly needs 
demonstration. It is practically identical with the Petrine tradition 
quoted by Ignatius, which we have the excellent authority of Origen 
for ascribing to the Doctrina Petri.’ It is also very nearly related 
to the resurrection appearance to Peter and a group including 
‘‘Levi the son of Alphaeus’”’ (Mk. 2:14) at the Sea of Galilee, 
forming the close of the Akhmim fragment of the Ev. Petri: 


xiv. 58. Now it was the last of the days of Unleavened Bread, and many 
were returning to their homes, the feast being over. 59 But we, the twelve 
disciples of the Lord, were mourning and grieving; and each one, grieved 
at what had taken place, departed to his own home. 60 But I, Simon Peter, 
and Andrew my brother, taking our nets, went away unto the sea. And 
there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord. . . 


This is obviously constructed on the basis of our Mark. Whether the 
author still possessed the original ending of Mark is more than 
doubtful. The only question is how much of actual survival of this 
original ending we may credit to him, in oral or written form, in 
addition to his own reconstructive powers. B may, or may not, have 
employed Mark. 

In the same category with the Ignatian fragment must be placed 
the Appendix to John, also using the same scenes of manifestation 
to Peter and others at the Sea of Galilee, restoration to the faith 
and work of the apostleship, and Great Commission. Also, perhaps 
from the source B, the story of the Miraculous Draft of Fishes (Lk. 
5:4-9); for critics point out that this contains an apparent refer- 
ence to the Denial (ver. 8) and an application intended to pre- 
pare the way for the Mission to the Gentiles (vers. 5-7). If so Luke 
has found an earlier place for this symbolic miracle, where it would 


6 In the case of Lk. 24: 36-43 the position of Peter has to be inferred from 
the affinity of the section with the fragment of Doctrina Petri in Ignatius ad 
Smyrn., iii., and with the Shorter Ending. In both these Jesus appears to ‘‘ Peter 
and his company ’’ (oi aepi Iérpov), 

7 Zahn is disposed to identify the Doctrina, from which according to Origen 
(de princ. pref. 8, Delarue I, 47) Ignatius draws, with the Kerygma Petri. 
Against this stands the long and important fragment 9 (ap. Preuschen, Antil. 
p: 54) very closely related to the source A (Lk, 24: 44-46). Jerome’s statement 
of the derivation of the fragment from the Ev. Hebr. is unreliable. 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 193 


not contradict the Jerusalem tradition, combining it with Mk. 1: 
16 ff. ) 

All these various forms of the Galilean tradition of the Resurrec- 
tion Appearances are later than Mark and in most cases can be 
proved to rest upon it, either with or without direct knowledge of 
the original ending. We should judge of them as we judge of the 
Shorter Ending, or of Mt. 28:9 f., 16-20. They represent the 
original ending of Mark in its various later adaptations, with more 
or less of legendary accretion. Our only means of restoring that 
original ending is a comparison and sifting of the entire group, 
leaving a residual record of which certainly the scene was the Sea 
of Galilee, the manifestation being given to ‘‘Peter and his com- 
pany.’’ In the earliest form this manifestation was entirely without 
communication from the women (Hv. Petri xiv. 58; Mk. 16:8). 
Later forms (e.g., Mt. 28:9 f.) attempt to bring together the two 
unrelated manifestations by reéstablishing communication between 
the women and the disciples. 

It remains, then, to turn back to the mutilated story of Mark 
and ask what were its possible sources, whence the material appears 
to be derived, why, and at what period, it may be supposed to have 
been put together in its present form. 

As long as it could be assumed that Luke in his story of the Cross 
and Resurrection was building on a single non-Markan source there 
could be but one explanation of the phenomena of mingled superi- 
ority and inferiority to Mark presented by the composition. It had 
to be assumed (and is in fact assumed by critics) that the historical 
superiorities of Luke were due simply to the personal judgment and 
acumen of this evangelist; whereas the inferiorities and secondary 
developments were ascribed to his Special Source. Since several of 
these later developments appeared to be paralleled in Mark, the 
Special Source as a whole was assigned to a position of dependence 
as respects Mark, and valued and dated accordingly. 

But as we have just seen, the non-Markan material of Luke, here 
as in the Petrine narrative of Acts, consists of more than a single 
strand. Source B, from which Luke derives the relatively late and 
legendary story of the manifestation to Peter and his company and 
their eating together in 24: 36-43, follows the Markan tradition, 
even (probably) as regards the location of the manifestation in 
Galilee.* B may well be dependent on Mark, and the source of some 


8 Note the ‘‘broiled fish’’ of verse 42, and compare Jn. 21: 9. On the other 
hand A introduced (as we shall see) the story of the Women at the Sepulchre 
(Lk. 24: 22-24). It implies, however (24: 34), that Peter at least was not in 
company with the Jerusalem group. 


194 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


of the elements of historical inferiority observed in Luke’s narra- 
tive. Other elements which show no traces of dependence on Mark, 
even if historically inferior, may be derived from source A. For 
while we have seen reason to regard source A as known to Mark, 
and often more historically reliable, we have no right to assume 
that historical superiority was always on one side. We cannot even 
assume that source B is anything more than source A in an ex- 
panded form employed by Luke, which had received supplements 
and additions beyond its content as employed by Mark and Mat- 
thew. Such a solution is in fact suggested by the absence of the Woes 
from the Beatitudes in Matthew (Lk. 6: 20-26; cf. Mt. 5:1-12); 
by the absence of the story of the Widow of Nain (Lk. 7: 11-17) 
from the Matthean form of the section on the Works of the Christ 
(Lk. 7: 18-35=Mt. 11: 2-19) ; by the amplified Lukan form of the 
parable of the Repentant Younger Son (Uk. 15: 11-32; cf. Mt. 21: 
28-32), or by the (expanded?) story of the Ten Lepers (Lk. 17: 12- 
19; cf. Mk. 1:40-45). At least in its earlier form (A) the Special 
Source of Luke seems to have been known to Mark as well as to 
Matthew. Yet in Luke, who draws his material for the Passion story 
mainly from the Special Source, and not (like Matthew) from 
Mark, we find admixtures (whether made by Luke himself or by 
some predecessor) from the later (B) form of this source, as well 
as some admixture from Mark. Primary and secondary elements 
are demonstrably present in-the material taken by Luke from his 
Special Source (cf. Lk. 24:34 with ver. 41), and must be dis- 
tinguished. Only after such discrimination can we hope to deter- 
mine the relation of Mark to elements A and B. 

Element A of the Special Source, detailed as it is in the surviving 
sections, is incomplete. Luke has omitted the Manifestation to Peter 
referred to in verse 34. He has also omitted (according to the 6 text) 
the visit to the sepulchre of “‘certain of our company’’ to verify 
the report of the women referred to in verse 24. The a text notices 
this omission and supplies it on the basis of Jn. 20: 1-10, setting 
‘‘Peter’’ in place of the ‘“‘certain ones.’’ This, however, cannot 
have been the original meaning. In the source (verse 34) Peter had 
not been in the company. The a text here represents the later form 
of the tradition (B). Fortunately the A element is explicit in de- 
scribing the experience of the women (22 f.), placing beyond doubt 
its inclusion of the preceding narrative back to the point where the 
women appear upon the scene (23-49). In this earlier portion of A 
the parallelism with Mk. 15: 40-16: 8 is so close as to make literary 
dependence on one side or the other an unavoidable conclusion. But 
the A account of resurrection appearances in Jerusalem is obviously 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 195 


not at all dependent on Mark. Have we any reason to suppose it so 
in its earlier narrative? Have we not on the contrary indications of 
no small weight that Mark is everywhere dependent on A? For a 
positive answer to this question we must look once more at Mark’s 
Passion story. 

Mark’s account of the ministry concludes as it had begun. In 
15:39 the heathen centurion, impressed by we know not what in 
the manner of Jesus’ death,° bears witness in phraseology appropri- 
ate in a heathen’s mouth to the superhuman nature of the victim: 
‘Truly this man was a Son of God.’’ One can imagine the im- 
pressivenesss of this close of the readings for the celebration of 
Good Friday in the primitive Church. It makes a full stop. 

What follows in Mk. 15: 42 ff. marks a new beginning and stands 
connected with the story of the resurrection. We have a new group 
of dramatis personae as unknown to Mark elsewhere as to the resur- 
rection gospel of Paul. It includes a number of women and a noble 
counsellor from Ramathaim, one who ‘‘waited for the kingdom of 
God.’’ The centre of the scene is Joseph’s rock-hewn sepulchre. An 
entire resurrection gospel would seem once to have rested on this 
basis, though nothing now remains of this save an undelivered 
messsage from an angel to the Twelve. In contrast Paul’s only 
mention of entombment is to compare Christ’s burial to the falling 
of the grain of wheat into the ground that it may bear more fruit. 
The testimony of the women, ignored by Paul, anticipates here even 
that of the Apostles and Peter. A secondary interest concerns the 
sacred ‘‘place where the Lord lay.’’ The angel bids men view the 
spot, as if inviting to a shrine of pilgrimage. 

Certainly this narrative cannot be from Paul, whose interest was 
not in the fate of the body of Jesus. Neither is it from Peter, who 
had a resurrection gospel of his own not inferior to Paul’s. It stands 
wholly apart, coming apparently from a period relatively late; for 
Mark explains its present novelty by the silence of the witnesses 
until now. The women received a commission to report the matter, 
but failed to deliver it. ‘‘They said nothing to any man, for they 
were afraid.’? By common consent this is a Jerusalem tradition, 
centred upon Jerusalem’s holy place (16:6), which must have 
come to Mark from sources independent of Peter and Paul. Are 
there any further indications whence the story is drawn ? 

The women disciples, suddenly introduced at this point in Mark 
for the part they are to play in the immediate sequel, just as ‘‘the 

9 Later texts insert xpdtas, or oltws xpdgas to supply a reason. Matthew 


brings in ‘‘the earthquake and (other) occurrences,’’ Luke ‘‘what had hap- 
pened’? (rd yevduevov). There seems to be a gap in Mark. 


196 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


scribes which came down from Jerusalem’’ are brought in without 
explanation in 3: 22, are not unknown to the Lukan Special Source. 
They are the same who appeared long since in Galilee (Lk. 8: 1-3) 
as members of the company of disciples who ‘‘ministered to [Jesus] 
of their substance.’’ They still belonged to it in Jerusalem, and 
had followed weeping to Calvary (23:27). They form part of it 
still in Acts 1:14. In Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1 there is curious vacilla- 
tion as to the names of these female witnesses, the manuscripts 
varying as well as the verses from one another. In Lk. 24:10 there 
is no variation of text, and the names are not unknown. “‘ Mary 
Magdalen’”’ and ‘‘Joanna’’ had both been introduced long before 
(8:2 f.).‘‘Mary (wife?) of James’’ appears now for the first time, 
but as one of the same well-known group. This group are at home in 
the Special Source, where the love and loyalty of women form a 
constant and conspicuous feature of the story. They are strangers 
in Mark, brought in for their testimony only, and then dismissed. 
There is here, then, almost certainly, a direct literary connection 
with the Special Source. Moreover priority is on the side of the 
Special Source. Mark is dependent. 

The following considerations favor priority here on the part of 
the Special Source, in addition to its connection with Jerusalem 
and its identification of the women: ; 

(1) It is not Mark but the Special Source which takes an interest 
in correspondences with the prophecy of the suffering Servant. The 
story of the counsellor Joseph, ‘‘A good and righteous man,’’ in 
whose tomb new-hewn from the rock they laid the body of Jesus, 1s _ 
usually looked upon as intended to recall the prophecy (Is. 53:9). , 
In Mark this significance vanishes. In the Special Source it is re- 
called (Lk. 24: 27). 

(2) The phraseology of Mark in these sections is that of the 
Special Source. Passing by the Semitism of Lk. 24:4 kat éyévero... 
xai idov, and some similar peculiarities, we note that in Mk. 15: 43= 
Lk. 23:51 Joseph is described as ‘‘one that waited for the kingdom 
of God.’’ The term is unknown to Mark, unknown to the New Testa- 
ment outside the Lukan writings. In the Lukan Special Source it 
is used to describe the devout element not attached to the body of 
disciples but in sympathy with their aims (Lk. 2: 25). 

(3) In verses 44 f. Mark adds a proof that Jesus was not un- 
conscious but really dead. Pilate obtains the witness of the cen- 
turion before granting the body. This supplement is secondary, a 
product of apologetic. Possibly its non-appearance in either Mat- 
thew or Luke might be explained on the assumption that it is a 
textual gloss attached after the employment of Mark by Luke and 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 197 


Matthew, but so early as to have found its way into nearly all 
existing forms of the text.*° If, however (as is more probable), it 
is from the evangelist’s own hand it carries with it the entire sec- 
tion, marking the whole as secondary. 

(4) In Mark the coming of the women to anoint the body (! ) 
without any means of removing the stone at the door of the tomb, 
although it was ‘‘very great,’’ remains unexplained. In Luke one 
may at least assume that the women had in view some provision for 
this contingency. More probably the clauses referring to the spices 
(23:56a; 24:1b) have been added by the evangelist (Luke) on 
the basis of Mark, like the similar insertions in his story of the 
Penitent Harlot (Lk. 7: 38b, 46). The women came on the third day 
‘to mourn and lament’’ according to Oriental custom. Such is the 
statement of Ev. Petr xiii. 52. It may well have been that of the 
source, though later in Hv. Petri it is combined with the Synoptic 
reference to the spices. The absence of this feature from Mark’s 
first statement of the women’s purpose, combined with the diffi- 
culties involved in the clauses referred to, make it probable that the 
whole idea of a belated anointing of the body with its attendant 
reference to the spices owes its origin as an explanation of the 
_ women’s presence to Mark. The source (element A) had an entirely 

adequate explanation without this unimaginable feature. 

(5) ‘‘Angels’’ do not belong to the dramatis personae of Mark, 
so far at least as concerns the present world. Mk. 1:13 might be 
considered an exception, but in this case we have Q material, and 
the reference to ‘‘angels’’ in the original (Lk. 4:19 f.=Mt. 4:6) 
which used Ps. 91:11 f. made the mention unavoidable. Hence it 
is only what we should expect that in Mk. 16:5 the heavenly mes- 
senger at the sepulchre clothed in a white garment (cf. Mk. 9:3), 
who is of course really an angel, should be described as ‘‘a young 
man’’ (veavioxos). In the Special Source ‘‘angels’’ regularly per- 
form such functions (Lk. 1:11, 18, 18, 19, 26, 30, 34, 35, 38; 2:9, 
Pe vorelone 1622. (20745): Acts: 5219.7 50* 822610237 
22; 11:13; 12:7, 8, 9,10, 11, 15, 23). The Special Source explicitly 
designates the messengers at the tomb as “‘angels’’ in the immediate 
sequel (24:23). It is not, therefore, an indication of priority that 
in Mk. 16:5 the heavenly visitant is not called an ‘‘angel.’’ On the 
contrary the fact that his real nature can be learned only by refer- 
ence to the parallel shows that priority lies really on the side of the 
Lukan source. 

We may conclude that the Special Source of Luke ran (in its A 
form) substantially as reproduced in Lk. 23: 48-24:35. Only the 


10 In some forms of the Latin verse 45 fails to appear, 


198 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


portion relating the Manifestation to Peter is missing. Its former 
presence is plainly shown by the reference in Lk. 24:34. It will 
have stood at the point where our a texts insert 24: 12, closing their 
insertion with the statement that Peter ‘‘departed to his own home’’ 
(arndAOev mpos éavrov). But at this point we have already in the source 
(A form) a post-apostolic addition. The writer here links the Wit- 
ness of the Women with the story of Peter’s Turning Again (cf. 
Lk. 22:32), a connection unknown to Paul. At how early a date 
this new feature was introduced we cannot say. In Mark the women 
come on the scene, but the part they should have played is no longer 
traceable. The main action concerns the Manifestation to Peter and 
the eleven. But so far as this is concerned the women accomplish 
nothing. Mk. 16:7 reiterates 14:28; but in vain, since the angel’s 
message remains undelivered. This form of the story is surely less 
_ original than the Lukan, where the women report to the company 
(not including Peter), but are disbelieved. From the earliest form 
of all (I Cor. 15:1-11) the incident of the women was absent al- 
together. 

Critics are justly agreed that the flight of Peter and the eleven 
to Galilee is an authentic tradition. They usually ascribe the 
elimination of it to Luke, who would thus simplify his story by 
cancellation of an inglorious episode. But the cancellation is proba- 
bly earlier. We may ascribe it to the A element of his Special 
Souree. For here (Lk. 24:13, 34) the Manifestation to Peter has 
already occurred before the evening of the third day. Galilee is 
too distant to allow of this. Moreover the author of the Special 
Source had stronger motives for the cancellation than Luke. The 
Witness of the Women is a Jerusalem tradition of a type char- 
acteristic of this Source (cf. 23:27 ff.). It finds room, as it were, 
for the Galilean tradition under the shelter of Jerusalem. It is, to 
begin with, the author of the Aramaic Special Source who would 
be most disposed to introduce a story of this particular type. Sec- 
ondly, it is clear that connection between this Jerusalem tradition 
and the original account of the Manifestation to Peter could not be 
effected without a geographical displacement of the latter. The 
sepulchre could not be removed to the Sea of Galilee; but ‘‘ Peter 
and his company’’ could be removed to Jerusalem and events con- 
solidated on “‘the third day.’’ It is the author of the Special Source 
who had the strongest motive for effecting this change, and it is 
made in that form of the Lukan story where the women appear (A). 
In Mark the women lag superfluous on the stage after their proper 
function is gone, showing Mark’s dependence on the older Source. 
Nevertheless, as we should expect from his real relation to Peter, 


“WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE Loe 


‘it is Mark rather than the author of the Special Source, who is 


correctly informed as to the time and place of the Manifestation to 
Peter. 
The attempt to combine the two irreconcilable factors has left 


clear traces in Mark’s story. In his report (16:7) the women are 


ain 


given a message impossible for them to deliver, seeing Peter and 
the eleven were already scattered (14:27). The angel assumes that 
the group are accessible. The warning of Jesus based on Zech. 13:7 
presupposes the other form. We can only infer that the whole Jeru- 
salem episode of Mark, centring as it does on the story of the 
Women at Joseph’s Tomb, forms an erratic block in Mk. 15: 40- 
16:8, a block derived from the A element of Luke’s Special Source. 
The splitting off of the original ending of the Gospel is probably 
due to the presence of this unassimilable foreign element. 

This is not all the evidence for the composite character of the 
Special Source as employed by Luke and for Mark’s dependence 
on the A element. Moving backward through the Passion story of 
Mark we find two versions of Jesus’ expiring cry. Verses 34-36 
maintain that he used the language of Ps. 21:1, and that the sol- 
diers, mistaking its import, offered him a drink of their posca, or 
‘‘vinegar’’ (Ps. 69:21). Parallel to this stands Lk. 23: 36-38 with 
a different interpretation of the cry based on Ps. 31:5. The original 
can have had nothing more than appears in Mk. 15: 37, paralleled 
in more Semitic idiom by Lk. 23:46. The source (Lk. 23: 46=Mk. 
15:37) merely stated that Jesus ‘‘cried a great ery.’’ Mk. 15: 34- 
36—Lk. 23: 36-38 are rival (though not independent) later attempts 
to give the purport of the cry, the Lukan quotation from Ps. 31:5 
being perhaps supplied by the evangelist (cf. Acts 7:59) as an 
improvement on Mark. 

Jesus’ expiring ery probably closed the story of the Passion as 
it stood in the source. Mark makes three additions: (1) an inter- 
pretation of the ery (verses 34b-36) ; (2) a report of the Rending 
of the Temple Veil (verses 37 f.), perhaps a pragmatized form of 
the teaching Heb. 6:19; 10:20; (38) the Centurion’s Witness (ver. 
39). These three additions give no evidence of authentic tradition, 
nor are they apparently derived from the Lukan source. Schmiedel, 
it is true, counts the quotation from Ps. 21:1 among his nine 
“‘foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus,’’4t and no 


11 Encycl. Bibl., s.v. ‘‘Gospels,’’ vol. II, section 139. In reality Schmiedel’s 
argument might well be reversed. The ‘‘forsaking’’ of the victim, in the sense 
that no divine deliverance came, had to be admitted. The insertion of the quo- 
tation proved that so it had been predicted. The objection is turned into a 
‘fulfilment.’ 


200 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


critic will deny that as compared with the Lukan quotation from 
Ps. 31:5 that of Mark from Ps. 21:1 is crude and harsh. But Ps. 
21:1 can easily be interpreted in a sense suited to the adoptionist 
Christology of Mark. In view of Hv. Petri v. 19 such would seem 
to be the intended sense. Certainly the references to the Coming of 
Elias in verses 35 f. are in line with Markan characteristics. We 
infer that the Special Source (A form) reported simply the ery, 
substantially as in Mk. 15: 38a, 37. Mark interjects an apocalyptic 
interpretation of this in 33b-36, using Pss. 21:1 and 69:21. Luke 
(or the B element) interprets preferably on the basis of Ps. 31:5. 

Earlier portions of Mark’s Passion story confirm this judgment 
of interdependence by showing varied results when compared with 
the Lukan parallels. The more authentic form appears now on one 
side now on the other, while the Lukan story taken by itself is cer- 
tainly not uniform but shows an earlier and a later element. 

The trial scene interjected by Mark in 14: 53-64 between his ac- 
count of how Peter followed Jesus and his captors into the court- 
yard of the high priest’s house, and its continuation in the Abuse 
of the Prisoner, which Peter witnesses before his flight (Mk. 14: 
60-72), has already been adjudged a replica of Lk. 22: 66-71 in 
which all comparisons favor the greater historicity (if not also the 
priority) of the Lukan form. Hither, then, Luke is correcting Mark 
on general principles, or his better knowledge is derived from some 
superior source. The latter alternative is not only in itself more 
probable, but is favored by the fact that it is only in the Lukan 
form that one can trace the real meaning of Jesus’ reply. In Mk. 
14: 62 Jesus replies outspokenly to the high priest’s question ‘‘ Art 
thou the Christ?’’ ‘‘I am, and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting 
at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven’’ 
(cf. Mk. 9:1; 12:36). In Lk. 22: 66-71 Jesus employs the same 
non-committal response as in Mark’s account of the Trial before 
Pilate (15:2): ‘‘Thou sayest,’’ and this applies only to the title 
Son of God, the reference to the Son of Man being no longer a pre- 
diction that his questioners will witness the Parousia, but only of 
his own exaltation ‘‘from henceforth.’’? The influence of Mark is 
almost certainly present here, but the proper dating of the trial 
(““when it was day’’) and the use of the Jewish formula ‘‘ye say’’*” 
give strong reason for assigning priority to the Lukan Special 
Source. It is in fact this source which consistently presents Jesus 
as a ‘‘prophet’’ and traces fulfilments of Isaian prophecies of the 
Servant in his sufferings. The abuse of the Prisoner by the menials 


12 On ‘‘od elas, od Aéyers in the Answer of Jesus’’ see J. H. Thayer in 
Journal of Biblical Literature, XIII (1894), pp. 44-50. 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 201 


of Annas turns, accordingly, on his claims to ‘‘prophesy’’ (Mk. 
14:65). He is “‘spat upon’’ (cf. Is. 50:6), and maintains silence 
before his accusers (14:61; 15:5; cf. Is. 58:7 and Acts 8:32). 
The motive for these data of the report is not apparent in Mark, 
but in the Special Source they support the argument to identify 
Jesus with the Isaian Servant. 

On the other hand when we pass to Mark’s story of the Trial be- 
fore Pilate (15:1-15) there are at least certain portions of the 
Lukan narrative which appear to rest upon Mark. It is true that 
Mark omits to say of what Jesus was accused, so that when Pilate 
asks ‘‘ Art thou the King of the Jews?’’ it suggests to the reader 
that the idea has just occurred to Pilate independently. No wonder 
our fourth evangelist (with the Gospel of Mark before him) makes 
Jesus reply to this question: ‘‘Sayest thou this of thyself, or did 
others tell it thee of me?”’ (Jn. 18:34). The missing datum appears 
in Lk. 23:2. But the remedy need not be from the source. It may 
have been supplied by Luke of his own authority. It would be un- 
safe to argue from its non-appearance in Mark that Lk. 23:2 is 
prior and was overlooked by Mark. 

More significant is Luke’s substitution of a Mockery by Herod 
and his Soldiers (Lk. 23: 4-12) for Mark’s account of Mockery by 
the soldiers of Pilate (15: 16-20). Brandt’* regards the story as 
legendary. At best it must rest on hearsay. But priority (if there 
be literary interrelation) must here be assigned to Mark. Increas- 
ingly with the advance of Christian apologetics the tendency grew 
to exculpate Pilate and the Romans at the expense of the Jews and 
‘‘Herod.’’ On this principle the substitution (if such it be) is on 
the side of the Lukan source. Hence, too, the “‘purple’’ of Mk. 15: 
17, which Matthew also seems to have regarded as improbable, 
gives way to a ‘‘gorgeous’’ robe (éo6jra Aaprpéay). 

Still more clearly is authenticity on the side of Mark in his ac- 
count of the crucified thieves. The Lukan story of the Penitent 
Thief has every characteristic of the homiletic ‘‘improvement.’’ 
It belongs with the series of Lukan penitents, the Penitent Harlot 
(Lk. 7: 36-50), the Repentant Younger Son (15: 11-32), the Peni- 
tent Publican (18:9-14), and Zacchaeus (19:1-10). Its contrast 
recalls the Rich Man and Lazarus (16: 19-31), the Good Samaritan 
and the Priests (10: 25-37), the Thankful and Unthankful Lepers 
(17: 11-19). It is difficult to suppose that the peremptory exclusion 
effected by Mk. 15: 32 is deliberate. If not, the source as known to 
Mark did not contain the story of the Penitent Thief. 


° 18 Rvangelische Geschichte, 1893, pp. 106-110. 
14 For Mark’s ropdipa Mt. 27: 28 substitutes ‘‘scarlet’’ (koxklyn). 


202 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Thus the complexity of the problem is manifest. First the Lukan 
material shows greater authenticity, then Mark. And in certain pas- 
sages the dependence of Mark upon the Lukan source seems an 
almost unavoidable inference. From such phenomena but one con- 
clusion can be drawn: The source as it appeared in Luke is not in 
its primitive form. It has undergone elaboration, perhaps admixture 
of extraneous material, since the time of Mark. It is this later form 
of the Special Source which we designate B. 

Admixture of extraneous material we have already shown in the 
ease of the B form and to such admixture we may probably refer 
the Mockery by Herod’s Soldiers (23: 6-12). This is prepared for 
in 9:9 and alluded to in Acts 4: 25-27; but the attitude of Herod 
here is not that of Lk. 13:31 f., which appears to represent the A 
form. Moreover the episode interrupts the context. In verses 4 f. 
Pilate is pleading with “‘the chief priests and the multitudes.’’ In 
order to continue from the same point in verse 18 he must again 
‘‘eall together the chief priests and the rulers and the people’’ (who 
have in the meantime dispersed) and recapitulate what had previ- 
ously transpired (18-16; cf. 2-4). Phenomena of this kind accom- 
pany supplements of foreign origin. 

The story of the Penitent Thief (vers. 39-43) also appears quite 
unknown to Mark, if not dependent on it. We must therefore as- 
eribe it to B. But as already pointed out it has the distinctive man- 
ner and interests of the Special Source, Repentance saves the Lowly 
and Outcast. The phenomenon is paralleled by the failure of many 
similar sections to appear in Matthew. True we could hardly expect 
to find traces of the Infancy chapters, or the Penitent Harlot, for 
Matthew omits also the Widow’s Mites and appears particularly 
prejudiced against the feminism of the Special Source..But it is 
difficult to explain the non-appearance in Matthew of the Miracle 
at Nain (Lk. 7: 11-17), and the Woes attached in Lk. 6: 24-26 after 
the Beatitudes. Lk. 15: 11-32, when compared with the simpler 
parable of the Two Sons sent into the Vineyard of Mt. 21: 28-32, 
makes the same impression of homiletic ‘‘improvement’’ as the 
Penitent Thief, and if we may venture on an element only presup- 
posed? by Mk. 1: 40-45, such is also the impression created by the 
Ten Lepers (17: 11-19). It is therefore not as a mere expedient to 
meet the difficulty of apparent reversal of the relation of priority 
as between Mark and the Special Source in successive sections that 
we leave open the possibility of later developments of it in the form 
employed by Luke. Matthew also, and Mark elsewhere, give inde- 
pendent evidence to the same effect. Certain elaborations of the 


15 See above, p. 158. 


WHY MARK IS INCOMPLETE 203 


Special Source of Luke are probably later than Mark, or at least 
appear unknown. Its most essential elements are presupposed and 
often utilized in Mark, though not as in Matthew and Luke. 

The foregoing analysis of the material peculiar to Luke in its 
relation to Mark is by no means simple. No simple solution could be 
expected to explain phenomena admitted to be extremely complex. 
It is presented here in outline only, more briefly than would be the 
case in a discussion of the Synoptic Problem generally. The present 
aim is merely to account for the Broken Ending of Mark, and to 
show that its disappearance was not accidental, since a merely 
accidental lacuna would have been quickly remedied. The disap- 
pearance of the original Ending forms part of the protracted story 
of adjustment between two conflicting streams of tradition both 
of which Mark had attempted to combine. The disruptive force 
came from inside. In respect to the time and place of Peter’s vision 
of the risen Christ Mark retains traces of a better tradition than 
Luke. But in Luke there are traces of a tradition which is superior 
to Mark as respects Peter’s isolation from the rest when he ‘‘turned 
again.’’ The Special Source of Luke also introduces a new factor, 
the story of the Women at the Sepulchre, whose historical value is 
hard to appraise since it is unknown to, or ignored by, Paul. The 
vain attempt of Mark to bring this new factor into harmony with 
his story of an appearance to Peter ‘‘and those who were with him’’ 
in Galilee (a fusion into one event of the two appearances reported 
by Paul: “‘to Peter, then to the Twelve’’) is responsible for the 
present condition of the Ending of his Gospel. For the blank space 
left by Codex Vaticanus after Mk. 16:8 is due to the scribe’s in- 
ability to choose between alternates: one (the so-called Shorter 
Ending) which followed the Galilean (Matthean) tradition, the 
other the Longer Ending, which followed the Jerusalem (Lukan) 
tradition. The Jerusalem tradition (in the form adopted by Luke) 
is itself composite, whether this be due to compilation by our canoni- 
cal evangelist, or (more probably) to his use of a Special Source 
already blended of two elements, A and B, or else an early source 
(A) expanded by the interweaving of later elements (B). Of these 
two elements the earlier, A, is known to Mark, who has taken from 
it the story of the Women at the Sepulchre without regard for its 
connection. B is unknown to Mark, perhaps itself dependent on 
Mark. 

The above conclusions are based on phenomena of the text which 
have been placed before the reader as fully as present conditions 
allow. If well founded they will explain the Broken Ending, and | 
throw much needed light on the Composition of the Gospel. 


CHAPTER XVI 
THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 


In the preceding chapters on the Composition of Mark an attempt 
has been made to show that the process was at least something more 
than the simple casting into written form of a single narrative, the 
unified product of an individual mind. In so complex a problem it 
cannot be expected that competent readers will accept at all points 
the reasoning of the eritic. The solution offered may appear at 
several points defective. In several it may well be superseded by a 
better, a result in which the author also will take satisfaction. Of 
one thing, however, he expects to convince every reader who has 
patience to verify all factors of the argument; it should be apparent 
that the Gospel was not written aus emmem Guss, but has strata of 
successive periods, seams and faultings, overlappings and duplica- 
tions, like the other compositions of its type. It has a past, whose 
record, difficult though it may be to decipher, often perplexing to 
the most patient scrutiny, is written in the phenomena of its struc- 
ture, and will reveal something of the history of the work to him 
who patiently analyzes and compares. 

These phenomena of composition and structure have their direct 
bearing on the question of date, especially if it become possible to 
identify individual sources, since these, taken by themselves, or 
compared with elements employed elsewhere, may prove more 
easily datable than the Gospel which builds upon them. To this 
enquiry we must ultimately return, taking up again in our con- 
structive argument the question of the Second Source and its date, 
and the relation of Mark to the Special Source of Luke, whether in 
discourse or narrative material. Meantime the complexity of struc- 
ture already established has an indirect bearing on the argument 
from language, which of late years has received increased attention. 

The theory of Aramaic originals for the Gospels is as old as the 
enquiries of Papias. The mere fact that the native language of Jesus 
and the Twelve was Aramaic (or, as Papias and other Greeks un- 
discriminatingly called it, ‘‘Hebrew’’) was enough for second-cen- 
tury apologists, who in opposition to Gnostic charges of falsifica- 
tion endeavored to authenticate the documents. They would have 
assumed “‘Hebrew’’ originals even had they been blind (as they 
could not well be) to the conspicuous contrast presented by the 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 205 


‘translation Greek’ of the narrative and ‘prophetic’ literature 
of the Church, when compared with the language of the Epistles, , 
or the ordinary Hellenistic xowy7. Papias has much to say about 
‘‘translation’’ of the original ‘“‘commandments’’ (évroAat, Adyia) 
of the Lord, by Mark, by himself (or perhaps the Elders from whom 
he derived his ‘‘Interpretations’’), and (in the case of Matthew) 
by unknown and unofficial translators. A quarter-millenium later 
Jerome plumes himself on the discovery of the ‘‘authentic Hebrew”’ 
referred to by Papias, though what he actually possessed was only 
an Aramaic targum (that is, a homiletic free rendition) of our 
own Matthew, previously in the hands of Apollinarios of Laodicea 
among the Nazarene Christians of Beroea in Syria. Jerome, igno- 
rant of the very language in which his ‘‘authentic Hebrew’’ was 
written, gave color to his claims of discovery by borrowing from 
Origen certain quotations from the Evangelium Hebraeorum, a 
totally different work probably written in Greek, not of Nazarene 
(orthodox) but of pronounced Ebionite character. The addition 
from Origen was incongruous, but in an uncritical age it served to 
bolster up the false claims of Jerome. 

In modern times the “‘ Aramaic originals’’ have received renewed 
attention, and this philological study has hastened the gradual re- 
linquishment of the ‘‘oral tradition’’ theory. For critics now realize 
that the phenomena of gospel composition imperatively demand 
the use of documents; and documents written in the Greek lan- 
guage, since the verbal coincidences between the Synoptists are in 
Greek. The period of oral tradition has thus receded further and 
further into the background. Ultimately, of course, utterance by 
word of mouth was the means of transmission. The logia (or, as the 
precepts are still called in the Pastoral Epistles and the Oxyrhyn- 
chus Fragment II, the ‘‘words,’’ Aoyor) of Jesus were at first trans- 
mitted unwritten. The haggada or ‘epos Adyos of the Christian Pass- 
over, including not only the story of ‘‘the night in which he (Jesus) 
was betrayed’’ (I Cor. 11:23), but probably also the story of the 
resurrection appearances (15: 2-11) was still current in 53 A.D. in 
oral form (xatrayyéAXeTe, rapéAa Pov, rapédwxa). But at a very early date 
written collections of the ‘‘teachings’’ were certainly employed. 

The supposed prejudice, inherited from the Synagogue, which 
forbade the use of such literature, is based on a misunderstanding. 
The rabbi was not forbidden the use of writing; he was only pro- 
hibited from bringing his private notes into the public service of 
worship. The system of catechesis employed even in Paul’s time by 
‘“pastors and teachers’’ would make the use of written collections 
indispensable, especially in the churches outside of Palestine not 


206 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


possessed of native tradition. And besides the ‘‘health-giving words, 
even the words of our Lord Jesus’’ (I Tim. 6:3) there would also 
be accumulated ‘‘narratives’’ (dunyjoes Lk. 1:1), anecdotes of the 
ministry as well as of the passion and resurrection. The telling of 
the latter belonged regularly to the (Christian) Passover, but the 
‘“Teaching of Baptisms’’ (Heb. 6:2) would inevitably tend to in- 
clude an account of how Jesus himself when baptized by John re- 
ceived ‘‘the Spirit of Adoption, which witnesseth with our spirit 
that we are born of God,’’ and how after ‘‘God anointed him with 
the Holy Spirit and power’’ . 
he went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for 
God was with him (Acts 10: 38). 

Amalgamation of ‘‘the things said’’ with ‘‘the things done,’’ 
natural in itself, would thus become an inevitable development. And 
Aramaic would be the first language employed because even in 
Gentile regions the first teachers of the Church were converted 
Jews. The two foci of attraction would be the two ordinances for 
neophytes, baptism and the supper. For this reason, doubtless, the 
earliest form of evangelic tradition begins with “‘the baptism which 
John preached,’’ and ends with the passion and resurrection (Acts 
10: 38-43). : 

For this reason equally the extant Gospels (espectally Mark, the 
earliest) and even the Pauline Epistles, show a general structure 
in which baptism and the supper form the basic substratum of the 
doctrine.’ It is the tracing of this gradual development, complicated 
by the difference of language, hastened among the remoter churches 
by the inferior previous training of catechumens, which constitutes 
our problem. When, where, and how, was the transition made from 
oral to written form? When did Aramaic diegeses give way to Gos- 
pels compiled in the Greek language, based on the Greek Old Testa- 
ment, and employing sources which (however genuinely Aramaic 
in their origin) were in Greek when transcribed by two or more of 
our evangelists? For even the oldest of our extant Gospels stands 
at this stage of the development. Modern criticism, better equipped 
philologically than second-century apologists, attacks this complli- 
cated problem, recognizing this fact at least by common consent: 
that the problem is literary, not oral. 

The common characteristic of all Gospels, more pronounced the 
further we go back toward the beginnings, is their imperfect articu- 
lation. This is the outstanding feature with which the earliest tradi- 


1 See Bacon, ‘‘ Reflections of Ritual in Paul.’’ Harvard Theological Review, 
VIII (Oct. 1915). 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 207 


tion deals, and is doubtless correctly interpreted by the second 
century when it speaks of the homiletic anecdotes of Peter. This 
imperfect articulation, adverted to in the Elders’ criticism of Mark, 
is a significant survival of the age before that of connected narra- 
tive. Mark truly does reflect the stage of ‘‘sayings and doings’’ 
loosely aggregated for the use of preachers ‘‘as the needs might 
require.’’ Its ‘‘order’’ is anything but careless or haphazard, but it 
is less advanced than that of either Matthew or Luke, whether the 
advance made be along the road of ‘‘syntaxes of logia,’’ after the 
plan of Matthew, or that of “‘diegeses,’’ after the plan of Luke. 
This fundamental characteristic is a guarantee that in the case of 
Mark at least we are not far removed from the age of primitive 
homiletic anecdote or Christian midrash. But the question is, How 
far? And to this the evidence of translation has a contribution to 
make. 

Arguments for the date and derivation of Mark based on its use 
of ‘translation Greek’ will depend for their applicability on the 
extent and character of this use. The Semitisms appear to extend 
beyond the mere individual anecdotes (which at some stage would 
inevitably go back to the Aramaic), and characterize to greater or 
less extent the redaction also. If the demonstration could be carried 
far enough, so as to show that every sentence and clause had a 
Semitic original, this might conceivably warrant the inference 
(actually drawn by Wellhausen) that its place of origin was in the 
Kast, presumably Palestine, if not Jerusalem ‘“‘the seat of tradi- 
tion.’’ But granting the extremest claims of Semitic coloration the 
objections to such an inference would be serious, if not fatal. The 
formidable strength of primitive tradition, unanimous as to the 
Hellenistic, or specifically Roman, origin of Mark, and supported 
by internal evidence of considerable weight and extent, has already 
been pointed out in the volume entitled Is Mark a Roman Gospel? 
It has been further corroborated above (p. 172 ff.). Explanations of 
Jewish customs such as Mk. 7:3, and the pronounced anti-Jewish 
propensities of the evangelist, in particular his attitude toward 
traditions tending to exalt Jerusalem and its leading apostles and 
great personages—an attitude invariably critical if not hostile— 
make it difficult to suppose that this Gospel was compiled for an 
Aramaic-speaking church. In addition the great mass of the biblical 
quotations are made on the basis of the Greek translation, several 
being entirely inapplicable on the basis of the Hebrew. If excep- 
tions appear it is in material which we have independent reason to 
believe borrowed from an earlier source. 

As regards evidences of Greek derivation the phenomena are 


208 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


curiously similar to those of Acts 1-12 (I Acts) and I Peter. In 
fact this becomes the chief ground of argument in the scholarly 
work of E. Scharfe entitled Die Petrinische Stroémung der Neu- 
testamentlichen Interatur (Berlin, 1893) for derivation of all three 
writings (I Acts being regarded as a Petrine source employed by 
Luke) from Peter himself. But the most striking of the phenomena 
obviously require some intermediate link. We may state them in 
Scharfe’s own synopsis (p. VII) : 


The language of the First Epistle of Peter obtains its characteristic 
stamp through close dependence on that of the Septuagint, with which it 
coincides not merely in its citations but in its entire vocabulary. 

Just as in the case of I Peter the Gospel of Mark depends on the 
Septuagint for its citations and for its entire use of language. The dis- 
courses of Acts show no divergence from this linguistic type. 

The three writings show affinity in this respect also, that to a considerable 
extent a common use of language is peculiar to them, and this use cannot be 
explained merely by common dependence on the Septuagint. 


Verification of these results will not require the transcription of 
Scharfe’s seventy pages of linguistic data. It may be said in brief 
that while a few inaccuracies appear the substance of the argument 
is abundantly borne out by the facts. Nothing can be cited requir- 
ing the assumption of common authorship, even as regards a com- 
mon narrative source underlying Mark and I Acts. But the influ- 
ence of the LXX is unmistakable. The three writings need not 
necessarily be connected in any other way than their putting for- 
ward in various ways the authority of Peter, but this they cer- 
tainly have in common; even when (as in the case of Mark and I 
Acts) they show an Aramaic foundation they seem to be composed 
by a Hellenistic Jew for Greek-speaking Christians whose Bible is 
the Greek Old Testament. Whatever the possible connection of the 
Apostle Peter with the Aramaic foundation, it is manifestly difficult 
to imagine him fulfilling the role of this Hellenistic Jew. 

Whether the document in question be Mark or I Acts the doctrine 
of translation from the Aramaic must take account of this unde- 
niable influence of the Septuagint, extending far beyond the limits 
of mere translation, as when in Acts 15: 14-21 the whole sense of 
the argument depends on the Greek form of the Old Testament 
citation. And this is not offset even if the allegation prove true that 
the Semitic coloration of the narrative extends to portions of the 
redaction as well as the incorporated material. For catechists to 
whom the redaction of the original separate anecdotes would natu- 
rally fall, would in most cases be converted Jews, who, whatever 
their doctrinal propensities, would be familiar with Aramaic as 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 209 


their mother tongue. The nature of the material, involving in the 
case of Mark both transliteration and translation of Aramaic words 
and phrases (3:17; 5:41; 7:2, 11, 34; 11:9 f.; 14:36; 15:34), 
would make this almost a matter of course, even did we not know 
that catechists and teachers in the primitive Church were as a rule 
of Jewish birth. Whether a native of Palestine or not (and the seem- 
ingly imperfect knowledge of Palestinian geography, displayed in 
such passages as 0:1, 14, 20; 6:45, 53; 7:24, 31; 8:10, 22; 11:1, 
Jewish law and custom in 7:3 f.; 10:12; 14: 12-16, and local his- 
tory in 3:6; 6: 14-29; 8:15; 12:18, suggests the latter alternative) 
the compiler of Mark was almost certainly a converted Jew, to 
whom Aramaic was familiar from childhood,? whereas Greek, while 
at least equally familiar, was known in the same colloquial, semi- 
barbarous form that it assumes in the slightly later Roman-Chris- 
tian writing of Hermas. 

Thus the inference of Wellhausen from the extent of the Semitic 
coloration to a Palestinian origin for Mark is far from cogent, while 
the indications of Roman provenance, supporting the strong second- 
century testimony to the same effect, are overwhelmingly opposed. 
The readers of this Gospel are not expected to know what is the 
season of figs in Jerusalem (11:13), nor that the avAy of Pilate’s 
residence was ‘‘the Praetorium’’ (15:16), nor that two lepta make 
a quadrans (12:42), nor what ‘‘the Jews’’ do to maintain their 
ritual purity (7:3 f.). The evangelist must tell them the meaning 
of ‘‘Boanerges’’ (3:17), ‘‘talitha qumi’’ (5:41), **qorban’’ (which 
he says in 7:11 means ‘‘a gift’’ (?)), ‘‘ephphatha’’ (7:34), and 
“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,’’ which he says the bystanders mis- 
took for a ery to Elias (!).* Even ‘‘abba’’ requires the adjunct 
6 waryp (14:36). He forgets, or thinks it unnecessary, to explain 
the meaning of ‘‘Beelzebul’’ (3:22), ‘‘Satan’’ (3:23, 26; 4:15, 
etc.), ‘‘rabbi’’ and ‘‘rabbouni’”’ (9:5; 11:21; 14:45, and 10:51), 
and ‘‘hosanna’’ (construed in 11:9 f. as an ascription of praise 
(!)). One may cherish doubts as to the correctness of the informa- 

2 Knowledge of Hebrew would not necessarily follow. On this see below, 

cealG 1, 
ss 2 Matthew tries to make the misunderstanding of the bystanders more in- 
telligible by substituting the Hebrew Eli, Hli (Hel, "Hdel) for the Aramaic 
elohi, elohi, which could hardly be mistaken for the name of the expected prophet, 
but without retranslating into Hebrew the rest of the quotation. This further 
step is taken by the second-century transcriber of the 6 text. In neither case 
are we justified in assuming any independent information. It does seem probable, 
however, that the source (Aramaic?) from which Mark drew quoted the Hebrew. 
Of course this interpretation of the ‘‘great cry’’ would be a ‘Scripture fulfil- 


ment’ of the purely imaginative type. The section Mk. 15: 33-36 we have already 
seen (above, p. 199) to be a duplicate of verse 37. 


210 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


tion furnished, but none whatever as to the need which it is in- 
tended to meet. The readers have a keen curiosity to know the 
exact Aramaic words used by Jesus on the momentous or symbolic 
occasions where they are given, else they would not be transliter- 
ated. But they are not expected to know their meaning, else they 
would not be translated. The @ text carries the process to pedantic 
absurdity by supplying the original Hebrew* for the utterance on 
the cross. This implies that as late as ca. 150 a.p. readers still wished 
to be told not merely the very syllables Jesus employed, but if 
the phrase happen to be from the Old Testament he must be as- 
sumed to have quoted from the original (!). It is important to 
observe the quasi-antiquarian interest thus implied already in 
Mark’s time on the part of readers. But apart from this it is clear 
that the data supplied were to them something strange and foreign. 
Jerusalem in 50-100 did not furnish readers of this type. 

It becomes necessary, accordingly, for those who maintain a 
Palestinian origin for Mark, even if the date be not made earlier 
than 70, to distinguish at least a certain external envelope to which 
the theory of translation from a Semitic original does not apply. 
The explanations and editorial comments were added afterward to 
accompany the translation when the material was given out in 
Greek. But the remainder, it is maintained, is so completely a unit 
that we must imagine the translator as abstaining altogether from 
compilation. He did not collect and edit (except as aforesaid), but 
confined himself strictly to the task of rendering into Greek the 
single document which lay before him. | 

Besides the serious difficulty from the use of the Septuagint two 
a priori objections are immediately apparent: (1) Primitive tradi- 
tion, which is never tired of harping on the supposed Aramaic 
original Matthew (a pure figment of apologetic imagination), has 
not the faintest suggestion of an Aramaic original of Mark. (2) Of 
all the Gospels, none of which are entirely lacking in the phenomena 
which accompany compilation and agglutination, there is none in 
which the evidences are so unmistakable and constant as in Mark. 
To these we need hardly return. If additional proof of the composite 
character of this Gospel be required reference may be made to the 
Commentary. 

The degree to which Semitic coloration of the language of Mark 
may be properly said to extend to the redaction as well as the ma- 
terial is still undetermined. It does not seem likely to be determined 
before we decide at least what portions are to be regarded as redac- 
tional, and whether the Gospel has passed through one or several 


4 On the beginnings of this process in Mt. 27: 46 see preceding note. 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 211 


redactions. If the latter be not the case with the work as known to 
us, it is pretty certainly the case with the incorporated material, 
and this supposition adds quite as much complexity to the problem. 
Editorial elements are present. That is universally conceded. Some 
of this connective tissue appears to share in the Semitic coloration 
of the language. That is less certain, but may be conceded as 
probable. The inference is drawn by a certain group of writers, 
not including Wellhausen, the most eminent advocate of the trans- 
lation theory, that the entire Gospel, in substantially its present 
form must have originated at an early date. We may take an ex- 
ample from the article ‘‘ Mark, Gospel of’’ in Hastings’ Dictionary 
of Christ and the Gospels (1906). After a detailed examination of 
the article, ‘Aramaic Gospels,’’ by W. C. Allen in The Expositor 
(V, 321), but without notice of the more fundamental work by 
Wellhausen, Dr. A. J. McLean, author of the Dictionary article 
proceeds : 

If the Aramaic-original theory be true, we must put back the date con- 
siderably, as Mr. Allen sees, probably to a date before a.p. 60; and then the 
Gospel is not likely to have been written in Rome. In this last detail the 
ecclesiastical testimony is again contradicted by the theory. 

Hasty and sweeping inferences such as these could only be war- 
ranted, if at all, on the supposition that the entire Second Gospel, 
substantially as we know it, was translated en bloc from the Ara- 
maic. But besides the a priori improbabilities already pointed out, 
such a supposition encounters immediately in the Scripture quota- 
tions of the Gospel a very serious if not fatal objection. For apart 
from certain rare exceptions, which (as we shall see) give independ- 
ent evidence of being not the evangelist’s own, but borrowed from 
his sources, the Scripture quotations of Mark are uniformly based on 
the LXX text. In some eases it is only the LXX rendering which 
makes them applicable. Were the evangelist a mere translator of 
an Aramaic work it is inconceivable that in upwards of seventy 
instances of quotation, usually without any indication of depend- 
ence, he should have turned to the original and carefully adjusted 
his translation to the wording of the LX X. What imaginable object 
could be subserved by substituting the LXX form éxrivagau rov xotv 
of Is. 52:2 for the more appropriate xovoprov by which both paral- 
lels correctly render the Hebrew? This instance from Mk. 6: 11= 
Mt. 10:14—Lk. 10:11 (cf. Acts 18:51) is typical. The Q form is 
basic. Mark is influenced (no doubt unconsciously) by his famili- 
arity with the LXX phrase in an exceptionally well-known pas- 
sage. But we may take another example. 

In Mk. 11:2 the evangelist describes the colt on which Jesus is 


212 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


to sit as unbroken. The intention unmistakably is to describe a ful- 
filment of the Seripture Zech. 9:9. This is in fact declared to be 
the intention by the later evangelists, who take pains to conform 
the language to the Hebrew original (Mt. 21:5; Jn. 12:15). But 
the Hebrew gives no intimation that ‘‘no man had ever yet sat’’ on 
the colt. Only the LXX by adding the adjective véov (‘‘new,’’ that 
is, ‘‘unbroken’’) in Zech. 9:9 give occasion for this curious asser- 
tion of Mark. 

These two instances may be taken as establishing the general rule 
long noted by students of the text of Mark, and shown in detail by 
Scharfe, that his quotations though free are based on the LXX text. 
In view of his use of sources it would be strange indeed if occasional 
instances did not occur of borrowed citations reflecting more or 
Jess of the Hebrew original; for the Q quotations seem to have this 
character. There may well be occasional accidental resemblances, 
as where in Mk. 10: 19 the ordinary form of prohibition (ui) ¢ovevoys) 
takes the place of the LXX od dovetoets (which Matthew character- 
istically restores). We may also expect, in language so familiar to 
every Jewish boy as that of the Shem‘a (Mk. 12: 29), alongside of 
the LXX é&€ (for which Matthew restores the Hebrew €v=be) the 
better rendering ‘‘strength’’ (ioxvos) instead of LXX ‘‘power’’ 
(Svvdpews). Exceptions such as these must be studied by themselves. 
The rule stands. The Bible of our evangelist is the Greek Bible. 
Until this conclusion is overthrown all evidences of translation must 
be held as applying to but a part of the material, for the evangelist, 
as we have seen, does not confine himself to mere literal rendition. 

The case, then, is by no means so simple as Dr. McLean supposes, 
and we are far from the unwelcome necessity of maintaining that 
‘the ecclesiastical tradition is contradicted by the theory (of trans- 
lation).’’ In reality an Aramaic original, even if extended to cover 
some of the editorial matter (and even the extremest advocates 
of this view will not maintain that it covers all), does not compel 
us to hold to a Palestinian origin for anything beyond the sources,® 
which in any event would be Palestinian. Much less does it compel 
us “‘to put back the date.’’ On this point we may recall the utter- 
ance of Wellhausen (Hvnl. p. 87) : 


So far as date of composition is concerned, in 13: 29 the destruction of 
Jerusalem is distinguished from the Parousia as already accomplished, 
and serves only as a sign of the approach of the latter. But this verse occurs 


5 The Aramaizing redaction might be Palestinian, or merely Hellenistic. It 
might be partly one, partly the other. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, 
Mark incorporates considerable sections (including redaction) from a Jerusalem 
source. 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 213 


in an attachment to the Jewish apocalpyse in chapter 13, which itself has 
been intercalated as a supplement. Apart from this we are given a chrono- 
logical clew in 10:39, where the two sons of Zebedee appear as proto- 
martyrs among the twelve. However, we cannot make full use of it; for 
we know the date only of James’ execution, not the date of John’s. If it be 
really the latter who is meant in Gal. 2: 9, he must have survived in Jeru- 
salem seventeen years after the conversion of Paul, and the Gospel of 
Mark could only have been written a number of years after a.p. 50. 


In several respects we have felt compelled to differ with the 
eminent philologian and critic from whom the above is quoted. As 
we have just seen, his contradiction of primitive tradition regarding 
geographical provenance on the ground of Aramaic origin was al- 
together hasty. The same reasoning would lead to similar results 
regarding the Fourth Gospel, wherein Dr. Burney finds evidence 
of translation from Aramaic no less conclusive than in Mark, the 
Semitic coloration of the language extending here also to elements 
of a redactional character.® But few will venture to question ancient 
tradition regarding the late date and Ephesian provenance of the 
Fourth Gospel. Therefore ‘‘the Aramaic-original theory’’ when ap- 
plied in this sweeping way either proves nothing, or else quite too 
much. The assumption that “‘we must put back the date’’ of Gos- 
pels written in Aramaic would compel us to assign an early origin 
to Jerome’s Nazarene Gospel, which we know to be a late targum of 
canonical Matthew. It would compel us to regard the translations 
into the ‘‘Hebrew’’ (Aramaic) of the Fourth Gospel and Book of 
Acts, still current among the Jewish Christians of Tiberias in 
Epiphanius’ time (Haer. xxx. 3, 6, and 138) as ancient documents. 
In short, it puts us, critically speaking, at the standpoint of Jerome, 
with his naive logic that a writing in Aramaic must be not far re- 
moved from ‘‘the authentic Hebrew.”’ 

The reasoning applies equally to documents translated (or con- 
cocted) from Aramaic, such as the Ev. Petri, certainly not earlier 
than 120 a.p., but written in ‘translation Greek’ of pronounced 
character." What the phenomena really indicate is no such romantic 
conclusion as Jerome’s or that of his modern imitators, but simply 
that the business of supplying the churches with accounts of things 
said or done by the Lord (7 AcxGevta 7 rpax6evra,) while it lasted, fell 
into the hands of Christians of Jewish birth, to whom Aramaic was 
familiar, and that the material chosen, whether earlier or later, 

6 The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, by C. F. Burney, D.Litt., Oxford, 
1922, 

7 Note in ii. 5 wpd muds TOv afduwr, in ix. 35 dva do Svo, in xii. 50, SpOpov dé 7H 
kupiaxjs, ete. 


214 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


authentic or unauthentic, was such as by its language (if not other- 
wise) could be easily identified as ‘‘Hebrew.’’ This period of Gos- 
pel composition lasted well into the second century; but in the 
later time it came more and more to be limited (as in Ev. Petri) 
to the standard material of Synoptic tradition. Semitic coloration 
of the language is therefore too general a characteristic to shed 
much light upon either date or provenance of a given gospel docu- 
ment. Without this characteristic it might not have been pre- 
served at all. At Rome or at Ephesus, in 50 a.p. or 100 A.D., com- 
pilers of gospels would limit themselves to material of this type. 
It is very well worth while, however, to observe that whereas both 
Mark and Luke reflect an interest on the part of their Greek-speak- 
ing readers in the unfamiliar modes of expression reported by their 
evangelist as belonging to the scenes depicted, this interest is met 
in quite a different way by the later and more cultured autor ad 
Theophilum. At this point philological study has really important 
contributions to make to our enquiry. 

Both Matthew and Luke correct the roughness and solecisms of 
Mark’s colloquial and occasionally even ungrammatical Greek. Ob- 
viously they take no interest in preserving mere uncouthnesses as 
such. They wish to remove them. Nevertheless both introduce (or 
retain from the sources) to much greater extent than Mark certain 
favored types of Semitisms, such as the xai idov, and rote 6 “Inaois 
of Matthew, and the endless and varied kai éyévero of Luke. These 
have the true oriental ring to the discriminating ear, and are care- 
fully retained when found in the source (not invented) by a stylist 
such as Luke. On the other hand Luke takes no interest in so crude 
a device for the creation of Oriental atmosphere as the translitera- 
tion of Aramaic phrases. For rabbi and rabbouni in Mark he simply 
gives the Greek equivalent diddcxados or émurarys. Similarly Luke 
does his full duty as a translator in rendering Stuwva tov Kavavatov 
of Mk. 3:18 as Sipwva tov Kadrovpevoy ZyArAwrynv. Of Mark’s conspicuous 
transliterations of Aramaic words and phrases he significantly omits 
every one. Transliteration is not the method of the cultured Greek 
stylist. He attains the same result to far better effect by a vivid 
contrast of style. For this purpose little more was needful than 
simply to retain the quaint oriental (and especially biblical) modes 
of expression of his sources, just as he retains the first person plural 
in the Travel-document of Acts. So far as Luke’s source had al- 
ready been translated into Greek (and the verbal coincidence of 
long Q passages in Matthew and Luke indicates that this was some- 
times the case) the retention was already secured. It belonged to 
the ordinary method of literal rendering characteristic of the time. 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 215 


Luke’s predecessor, whether a stylist or not, worked here in his 
interest. For the rest Luke varies the expression, chooses terms of 
his own, improves and retouches with skilful hand, till he has im- 
pressed upon the whole work his own characteristic style and 
vocabulary; yet he has retained the Semitic coloration, because it 
was his special object to do so. What was but crudely attempted in 
Mark, Luke, using a different method, has seemingly carried out 
with a master hand. 

The preservation in Mark of a large amount of material (not 
excluding some of redactional type) written in ‘translation Greek’ 
is only what we should expect of any compiler under the circum- 
stances the primitive tradition requires us to assume. If this evan- 
gelist did his work at Rome after the death of Peter and Paul (and 
perhaps of Mark also, though still under the sanction of Mark’s 
authority), we should expect it, so far as Semitic coloration is con- 
cerned, to have the linguistic character actually displayed. As re- 
marked long since by Schmiedel (Hc. Bibl., s.v., ‘“Gospels’’ sect. 
130, col. 1871) : 


The gain from recourse to the theory of such an (Aramaic) original is 
in the first place this, that certain Greek expressions will then admit of 
explanation as being errors of translation. Once made, such errors could 
very well pass on without change from one Greek writing to a second and 
to a third. But it will be at once obvious that such an explanation can have 
importance only in regard to particular passages, not in regard to the 
origin of the gospels as complete books. 


Translation errors have been established with high probability both 
in Q and in Mark, making the use of Aramaic documents almost a 
certainty somewhere in the pedigree of both. In neither case does 
it appear that the mistranslation was due to the canonical evangel- 
ist. The errors were already present when the works containing 
them were incorporated in the later compilation. This can be proved 
in the case of @ by the verbal coincidence of extracts made inde- 
pendently by Matthew and Luke. In the case of Mark it is made at 
least probable by his use of the same source in the same rendering,® 
as well as by his dependence on other Greek documents. 

For it is rather the use of Greek documents (albeit translated) 
that deserves special attention in Mark than the Semitic coloration 
of his language, which as we have seen is nothing peculiar, but 
in greater or less degree a general phenomenon of all gospels. In 
the borrowed quotation from Mal. 3:1, which our evangelist mis- 
takenly ascribes to ‘‘Isaiah,’’ 1:2 follows exactly the wording of Q 


8 Above, p. 156. 


216 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


(Mt. 11: 10=Lk. 7:27) in spite of its broad differences from the 
LXX. Not knowing where to find the original Mark naturally does 
not correct it. It is also evident that he uses Q in its Greek form, 
the same translated form subsequently found in the hands of Mat- 
thew and Luke. As we have seen, this is far from being the only 
instance where Mark employs this document. But the very next 
words to those thus borrowed in 1: 2, attached as if part of the same 
Scripture, are drawn from Is. 40:38, and not from the Hebrew but 
from the LXX. For Mark is depending on the Greek when he com- 
pares John’s preaching in the desert (é€v 77 épyuw) to the Isaian 
‘‘voice erying in the wilderness.’’ (So LXX.) In the Hebrew it is 
(quite correctly) the “‘highway’’ which is to be built across the 
desert, whereas the ‘‘voice’’ is of course not in the wilderness, but 
where hearers are to be found. Mark (or the source he employs) 
misunderstands, because here (as elsewhere) he uses the Greek Old 
Testament, his very language in several instances being unmis- 
takably colored by it. 

Another possible exception to Mark’s citation from the Septua- 
gint would be the ‘“‘hosanna’’ of Mk. 11:9 f., a further instance of 
exceptions which ‘‘prove the rule.’’ For, as we have already noted,® 
Mark is not speaking here at first hand but using Q material. More- 
over the fact that he understands the ery to be an ascription of 
praise shows that he was no Hebraist, however familiar with Ara- 
maic and the phrases of Jewish liturgy. Neither can Mt. 21:9 be 
cited in support of Hebrew usage of this kind. Matthew adds ‘‘to 
the Son of David’’ as an equivalent for the omitted clause ‘‘blessed 
be the coming kingdom of our father David’’ (Mk. 11:10). He 
accepts the current idea (which appears not alone in Mark but also 
in Didaché x. 6: ‘‘Hosanna to the God of David’’) that hosanna 
was an ascription of praise, an idea probably based upon its hturgi- 
cal use in the Psalms (20:9), especially the Great Hallel, or Pass- 
over Psalm (118:25). In fact Mark employs the shortened form 
(hosha-na, not hoshia-na), which, as Dalman points out,’° is that 
employed in the Jewish liturgy. Mark also adds ‘‘in the highest 
places’’ (év rots ipioros), which Luke makes intelligible to Greek- 
speaking Christians in phraseology borrowed from the angels’ song 
at the Nativity: ‘‘Peace (be) in heaven, and glory (to God) in the 

9 Above, p. 168. Another exception might possibly be claimed in Mk. 10: 19, 
where the Ten Commandments are loosely cited (cf. ‘‘ defraud not’’). But here 
the use of the ordinary form of prohibition (u# with imperative) instead of 
the unusual form of LXX (od with future indicative), is far more probably 
due to simple lapse into ordinary Greek than to independent translation from 


the Hebrew. ; 
10 Worte Jesu, 1898, pp. 180-183. The whole discussion is highly instructive. 


THE LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT 217 


highest places.’’ Luke takes Mark to mean (perhaps correctly), 
‘‘Let angels also praise him’’; cf. Ps. 148:1. In reality the words 
are merely a reflection of the Hallel liturgy. The Psalm passage 
used the name Jehovah no less than four times, which current prac- 
tice avoided by the use of circumlocutions such as “‘heaven,’’ ‘‘in 
the presence of God,’’ or ‘‘of the angels’’ (so Lk. 15:7, 10, ‘‘joy 
in heaven,’’ or ‘‘in the presence of angels,’’ for ‘‘God rejoices’’). 
The cry was ‘‘ Hosanna, blessed be he that cometh in the name of 
Jehovah’’ (cf. Q Mt. 23:39=Lk. 13:35). As Dalman points out, 
‘“in the highest places’’ is substituted for ‘‘in the name of Je- 
hovah,’’ a further indication that Mark is using Q material, per- 
haps not appreciating that his final clause only repeats in more 
reverential form the utterance already given in verse 9b. The fact 
that Matthew repeats, without essential change, suggests, but per- 
haps may not suffice to prove, that this evangelist also ‘‘was no 
Hebraist, and hence cannot have been the Apostle.’’** One may be 
permitted to doubt whether the Apostle Matthew was a Hebraist. 
One may also doubt whether the occasional employments of the 
Hebrew text in our First Gospel prove that evangelist a Hebraist. 
In some instances they are manifestly borrowed, perhaps they may 
be in all. The latter is certainly the case in Mark. Mark at least 
‘“was no Hebraist.’’ 

A discriminating study of the linguistic features of Mark leads 
thus to results which, so far from refuting, distinctly support and 
confirm those already obtained from the phenomena of structure 
and composition. For two deductions we are indebted mainly to 
Semitic grammarians and philologians, such as Wellhausen and 
Dalman, Allen and Torrey, though thanks are also due to Blass, a 
great classical grammarian. It may well be hoped that researches 
into the Aramaic originals of our Gospels, proving that the Semitic 
coloration is not a matter merely of the material content, but ex- 
tends to certain parts of the connective tissue, will have given at 
last the coup de grace to the oral tradition theory, by showing that 
whatever the initial stages the process with which the critic has to 
do belongs to the history of written material. His subject matter 
consists of documents, compiled, edited, translated. This is the first 
and great contribution of the Semitists. The second is also helpful. 
It tends to disprove, perhaps has actually disproved, the contention 
of critics such as Schmiedel and Harnack, that our evangelists, 
especially Luke, wrote a ‘‘biblical’’ Greek, imitating the Old Testa- 
ment as school-boys imitate the Elizabethan English of the Author- 
ized Version with abundant use of phrases such as ‘“‘And it came 


11 Dalman, ibid. 


218 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


to pass,’’ ‘‘lifted up his voice and wept,’’ and the like; or that they 
employed a ‘‘Jewish Greek’’ which had similar characteristics. 
‘“Translation Greek’’ is a term that will abide because it stands for 
a reality. It attests the important fact that the peculiarities noted 
are not imitations, but true survivals. It is accompanied by an 
increasing number of interesting and instructive ‘‘translation 
errors,’’ some of which may fail before the acid tests of criticism, 
but some of which will surely remain to corroborate the theory, and 
to enrich our critical analysis and interpretation. This also calls for 
appreciation of the work of the grammarians. 

On the other hand stands the work of critics, or men who, like 
Wellhausen, combine critical skill with expert authority in the 
field of Semitic philology. To these is due the recognition that the 
Greek coloration as well as the Semitic extends below the surface. 
It is they who justly insist that the phenomena of composition shall 
be considered as well as those of simple translation, and these 
phenomena compel the recognition of Greek sources and Greek — 
editorial work, as well as Semitic. Neither kind of coloration, then, 
belongs to the surface only. The cloth with which we have to do is 
‘“‘dyed in the wool,’’ but not in one color only. 


BARE ST Vie 
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 





wy | 
t seu, | 
Pah Ny by A 


x a 7 
‘ 


y ei if 


a 





CHAPTER XVII 
PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 


THE question of priority as between Paul and Mark is to some ex- 
tent a question of dependence in doctrine, and this involves pri- 
marily a definition of the Pauline Christology based on a survey of 
the Epistles, and a comparison of it with the Christology of Mark; 
because in primitive Christian documents the Christology is central 
and determinative. The writer’s message 7s his Christology, if under 
this head we include also his soteriology. And if the Christology 
admit of analysis, so as to determine the component ideas (with or 
without determination of their sources), it may become possible to 
say: Such and such a Christology is Pauline, or Petrine, or perhaps 
merely pre-Pauline. And analysis is not impracticable. In the case 
of the Epistles we are aided by our knowledge of the Petro-Pauline 
controversy and by certain specific statements of the Apostle con- 
cerning ‘‘the gospel I received’’ (I Cor. 15: 1-11). In the case of 
Mark we have indications of duplication and editorial manipula- 
tion. In both cases certain factors are presupposed. 

1. In general terms we may say without fear of successful contra- 
diction that the Christology of Paul presupposes certain more 
primitive types, which we may designate respectively the “‘Son of 
David’’ Christology, the ‘‘Servant’’ Christology, and the ‘‘Son of 
Man’’ Christology. We may consider them in this order. 

The messianic ideal which controls in the Son of David Chris- 
tology is closely akin to the nationalistic-Jewish. It appears most 
clearly in the speech of James in Acts 15: 14-21, based upon the 
prophecy of Am. 9:11 f., and making the restoration of the ruined 
kingdom of David central, with ‘‘the residue of men’’ as an ad- 
junct. Traces appear also in the Genealogy of Matthew (Mt. 1: 
1-16), in the liturgy of the Didaché (x) and some elements of Luke. 
While it clearly contemplates a restoration of the kingdom of David 
as the messianic ideal, maintaining a sort of caliphate of the kindred 
of Jesus in Jerusalem while awaiting his return on the clouds of 
heaven, it is not by intention Jewish- but universal-Christian. 
Nevertheless, however kindly meant, it was manifestly not adapted 
to the winning of Gentile converts. Luke, who can incorporate with- 
out a qualm statements of the mission of the Christ such as the 
canticles of Lk. 1: 46-55 and 68-79, has the literary sense to appre- 


222 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


ciate their idyllic beauty. He has also the knowledge that they come 
from the most primitive Jewish-Christian circles. Therefore he 
makes them part of his Gospel. But this presupposes a certain meas- 
ure of historical and literary adaptation. Practically the Gentile 
world was not converted to a gospel which proclaimed as the mission 
of the Redeemer the scattering of the proud (Gentiles), the putting 
down of princes, the deliverance of Israel, God’s Beloved, in fulfil- 
ment of the promises made to the patriarchs, the raising up of a 
horn of salvation in the house of God’s servant David: 


Salvation from our enemies, 

And from the hand of all that hate us; 

To show merey towards our fathers 

And to remember his holy covenant: 

The oath which he sware to Abraham our father, 

To grant us that in deliverance out of the hand of our enemies 
We should serve him without fear, 

In holiness and righteousness before him all our days. 


Practically it is just as certain that the Christology which actually 
called into being the churches of the Greek-speaking world was not 
of this Son of David type, as it is that the Jerusalem decrees, drawn 
up to avoid ‘‘pollutions of idols’’ by imposing rules of kosher food 
on churches which counted in their membership those ‘‘ Jews among 
the Gentiles’’ so dear to the heart of James, were not really pro- 
mulgated by Paul and Silas in Galatia as a settlement of the great 
controversy (Acts 16:4). In both cases the literary artist and anti- 
quarian of the early Church is embodying material for its literary 
beauty and historical interest rather than because he frames, or 
can frame, a true picture of the situation. This nationalistic type 
of Messiah is explicitly repudiated by Paul; considerately and tact- 
fully in Rom. 1:3 f., more peremptorily in II Cor. 5:16 as ‘“‘a 
Christ after the flesh.’’ Nevertheless the Son of David Christology 
is presupposed by the very fact of Paul’s opposition. But scarcely 
among the Gentile churches. We can imagine ‘‘certain from James’’ 
attempting to bring over to the ranks of ‘‘the cireumcision’’ those 
among Paul’s converts partly of Jewish birth, like Timothy, or 
otherwise connected with ‘‘the Jews which are among the Gentiles.’’ 
We can imagine them forming parties in his churches like those at 
Corinth who claimed to be ‘‘of Christ,’? meaning thereby that they 
followed the example of Christ in being circumcised and keeping 
the Law. But it is impossible to imagine them faring boldly forth 
hike Paul, ‘‘where the name of Christ had not been named’’ and 
making Gentile converts by proclaiming a Son of David who rules 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 223 


the Gentiles with a rod of iron and dashes them in pieces like a 
potter ’s vessel.* | | 

2. The Servant Christology scarcely needs further description. 
We know that it was primitive from the express statement of Paul 
(I Cor. 15:3). There are critical reasons for directly connecting it 
with the name of Peter. At all events within the compass of the 
New Testament it is only in the speeches of Peter in Acts 2-4 that 
the title “‘the Servant’’ is employed, and it is only in documents 
such as I Peter, which (justly or unjustly) are coupled with Peter’s 
name, that the Isaian ideal occupies the foreground. Among these 
documents we must certainly class the Special Source of Luke 
(wherein Peter forms the central figure next to Jesus himself) and 
perhaps the bulk of the Q material. At all events a very large part 
of the Q material conspicuously displays this Christology of the 
Isaian Servant-prophecies. We may even say that in such passages 
as the Temptation it is definitely set over against the Son of David 
Christology, and in others, such as the Parables of the Kingdom 
(Mk. 4:1-84) and Works of the Christ (Mt. 11:2-19=Lk. 7: 
18-35), it is differentiated from the Son of Man Christology also. 
The Genealogy and Infancy chapters of Luke seem to have a similar 
relation to the Matthean. Neither can be really primitive. But the 
ideal represented in Mt. 1: 1-2: 28 differs widely from the Lukan. 


In Matthew Christ descends from the royal line, and all the inci- 


dents related point to his ultimate triumph as Son of David. In 
Luke this is greatly softened. Christ is still Son of David, but not 
by the royal line. He appears among the lowliest, as their friend 
and champion; but he triumphs as (universalistic) Son of Man 
(3:38). 

The Servant Christology, like its predecessor the Son of David 
Christology, is presupposed rather than proclaimed by Paul, but 
with the profound difference that he endorses and builds upon it. 
The picture of the ‘‘mind of Christ’’ in Phil. 2: 5-11 is that of the 
Isaian Servant, though the prophecy is not named nor directly ap- 
pealed to. The characterizations of “‘meekness and gentleness’’ are 
the only ones applied by Paul to Christ (II Cor. 10:1). The very 
terms are unknown to Mark. But they are typical of the Servant. 
Paul refers to the ‘‘ promises of the prophets in the holy Scriptures”’ 
(Rom. 1:2). His central gospel is that Jesus was “‘delivered up for 
our trespasses, and raised for our justification’’ (Rom. 4:25; cf. 


1 The review of Jewish history in the speech ascribed to Paul in Acts 13: 16- 
41 is made in the interest of a Son of David Christology. The promises to David 
are fulfilled in Jesus. This is one reason for questioning its authenticity. Another 
is that it repeats the arguments of Peter in 2: 22-36. 


224 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Is. 53:12). Such references would be unintelligible were we not also 
told that Paul ‘‘received’’ this gospel, how that ‘‘Christ died for 
our sins according to the Scriptures’’ (I Cor. 15:3) ; for nowhere 
does Paul on his own account refer to the prophecy of the suffering 
Servant, nor does he in a single instance employ the title in applica- 
tion to Christ. Jesus is to him always the ‘‘Son’’ (vids), never the 
‘‘Servant’’ (ais) of God. This would hardly be the case if Paul’s 
own Christology were distinctively that of the Isaian prophecies, 
often as he builds upon them. In Paul the Servant Christology is 
presupposed. 

3. Almost the same might be said as to the Son of Man Chris- 
tology in Paul. We have seen that it is fundamental to the Thessa- 
lonian Epistles, and it may be said in a way to underlie the tran- 
scendental Christology of the later Epistles. But nowhere does Paul 
appeal to the prophecies of Daniel. Scarcely do we even find them 
employed. He is far from using apocalypse as he uses Isaiah. Daniel 
is scarcely reflected outside the Thessalonian Epistles. The title 
Son of Man is nowhere applied to Jesus. At the utmost ‘‘the 
heavenly man,’’ the ‘second Adam’’ (I Cor. 15: 45-49; Phil. 2:6), 
may be said to show a faint reflection of it. The Son of Man Chris- 
tology, accordingly, is also only presupposed in Paul, and tends to 
disappear in the later Epistles. It cannot be called his own. 

In all but the name, it has been well said, Paul’s Christology is 
a Logos doctrine like the Johannine. In reality it is an incarnation 
doctrine hypostatizing the creative, revealing, and redemptive 
‘“Wisdom of God,’’ which in the Wisdom literature (more espe- 
cially Wisdom of Solomon) is merely personified. Naturally it is not 
developed in its metaphysical aspects until after Paul’s death in 
the time of controversy with Phrygian philosophy. In the Ephesian 
Gospel we find it in its maturity. 

From the Epistles we turn to the Gospels. Here it is at once ap- 
parent that the Pauline Logos doctrine, a Christology implying real 
preéxistence, is absolutely confined to the Fourth Gospel, a work 
shown by its affinity with the Epistles to have been constructed 
largely for the purpose of bringing out this ‘‘higher Christology”’ 
against Docetic heresy. Synoptic Christology, as has been pointed 
out repeatedly, is an apotheosis doctrine. It ignores the incarnation 
theory of Paul and the Fourth Gospel. As compared with Paul and 
John the Synoptic group form a unit. As compared with one an- 
other, however, they differ. Luke and Matthew stand together by 
their doctrine of virgin birth, carrying back the divinity of Jesus 
to his human origin, but not before it. They thus avoid the opening 
to Adoptionism afforded by Mark. For, whether so intended or not, 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 225 


Mark’s representation of the ministry as beginning with the bap- 
tism, when Jesus, after his endowment with the Spirit, ‘“began to do 
miracles and to reveal the Unknown Father’’ played into the hands 
of Cerinthus and other Docetists and Adoptionists. These, as Ire- 
-naeus informs us, made this Gospel their sole authority, because of 
its failure to carry back this endowment with the Spirit to the birth 
of Jesus. Unquestionably primitive tradition supported Mark in 
beginning at the Baptism. But we may well believe that the coinci- 
dence of Matthew and Luke in the miraculous birth, the only point 
of coincidence of their infancy narratives apart from the location 
of it in Bethlehem, is due to a common desire to counteract tenden- 
cies toward Adoptionism.? 

The Christology of Mark therefore is more primitive than that of 
either Matthew or Luke. Nevertheless it is by no means primary. 
Indeed it presupposes factors identical with some presupposed by 
Paul, and in almost the same relation. Mark manifestly knows the 
Son of David Christology, though his attitude toward it is even 
more hostile than Paul’s. To Mark as well as Paul it is a Christhood 
‘‘after the things of men.’’ Peter in giving expression to its ideal 
makes himself the mouthpiece of Satan (8:33). The people who 
welcome Jesus to Jerusalem with their hosannas to ‘‘the Son of 
Davyid,’’ acclaiming ‘‘the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our 
father David,’’ are to Mark’s view as blind as Bartimaeus, who both 
stands among them and is representative of them. Bartimaeus takes 
the lead in crying out, refusing to be silenced, ‘‘ Thou Son of David, 
thou Son of David, have mercy on me.’’ For his faith’s sake he is 
healed ; but the story goes on to tell how Jesus wound up his answer 
to the various faction-leaders, Pharisee, Sadducee, and scribe, by 
declaring that the teaching that the Christ must needs be the Son 
of David is a mere invention of ‘‘the scribes.’’ David himself in the 
Spirit saw more clearly. Ps. 110:1 proves the Christ to be one 
whom God is to exalt to his own right hand. He may or may not be 
‘““born of the seed of David according to the flesh’’; his authority 
at all events is not derived from pedigree. It comes from the fact 
that according to the Spirit of holiness God miraculously pro- 
claimed him Son of God by raising him from the dead and seating 
him at his own right hand. As against an earthly Son of David 
Christology this messiahship by apotheosis is Pauline. It lacks in- 
deed the element of preéxistence, and carries us no farther than 
I Pt. 1: 20. But in making exaltation and not descent the criterion 

2Tgnatius in 115 a.p. makes a crude attempt to combine the Matthean Son 


of ‘David Christology, including a highly mythological version of the Virgin 
Birth, with the Christology of Paul (ad Eph. xv). 


226 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


it agrees with what Paul defines as his own “‘Son of God’’ Chris- 
tology in Rom. 1:3 f. Thereafter Paul shows by his repeated use of 
the clause ‘‘caused him to sit at his right hand’’ (Rom. 8:34; Eph. 
1:20; Col. 3:1) that it is based on the same Psalm passage which 
Mark repeats in 12: 35-37. Mark gives the debate this supremely 
significant position, presenting it as Jesus’ own definition of his 
person and authority, because to him it conveys the true and only 
right Christology. The scribes call him “‘Son of David’’ but David 
himself ‘‘in the Spirit’’ calls him ‘‘Lord.’’ 

The Son of David Christology is rejected in Mk. 12: 35-37 as a 
delusion of the scribes, which even their own Scriptures show to be 
false. It is this doctrine (without the term) which is treated as 
Satanic in 8:33. Jesus is to Mark the Son of God, by which he 
means something very different from Son of David. If he knew © 
either of the discordant pedigrees of Mt. 1:1-17 and Lk. 3: 23-38 
he could not fail to disregard them, just as Paul does. For him, as 
for his contemporary, writing (probably to Rome) at approximately 
the same date, the heavenly rank of Christ must be like the priest- 
kingship of Melchizedek, ‘‘without father, without mother, and 
without genealogy’’ (Heb. 7:3). Mark has small respect for the 
little caliphate at Jerusalem, whose members are never mentioned 
in this Gospel save to point out the unworthiness of their concep- 
tions (3:21, 31-35; 6:4; 9: 38-40; 10: 28-31, 35-45). He has per- 
haps even less respect for the Son of David Christology. He may 
be of Jewish birth, but he detests Judaizers. Only rarely is Jesus 
spoken of as ‘‘Lord’’ or as ‘‘the Son’’ (sc. ‘‘of God’’) in Mark. This 
belongs to Mark’s theory of the ‘‘hiding of the mystery’’ from the 
non-elect. Few save Gentiles (cf. 5:19; 7:28) are supposed to ap- 
preciate the truth. Nevertheless ‘‘Lord’’ («vpios) and ‘‘Son of God’’ 
are the terms Mark himself would choose to define Jesus’ authority 
CME. Ds Ly Vip 24554203 sl ete ee Re: OB ale Boye 

The Son of Man Christology is also presupposed in Mark, and is 
also endorsed as in Paul, but without the reserve of Paul’s later, 
more Hellenistic eschatology. This title, too, like the title ‘‘Son of 
David,’’ appears in Mark as a totally undigested foreign element. 
The reader receives no explanation whatever. He is expected to 
know why Jesus speaks of himself as ‘‘the Son of Man’’ (2:10, 
28, etc.), Just as he is expected to know without explanation why 
the multitude call him ‘Son of David.’’ The evangelist is probably 
not conscious that he has given none; but this only makes it the 
more certain that the doctrine 7s presupposed, and of no recent 
srowth. Were it recent the necessity of explanation would be felt. 

The Eschatological Discourse (chapter 13) is proof sufficient that 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 227 


Mark goes beyond Paul in his dependence on Daniel. In his Little 
Apocalypse he combines Daniel with elements of Q. And in Q ‘‘the 
Son of Man’’ is a ‘‘favorite self-designation of Jesus.’’ But in what 
sense? Surely not the apocalyptic, for the Christology of Q is a 
Servant Christology in Wisdom development. The Works of the 
Christ are such as proclaim him the Servant. But just as in Wis- 
dom of Solomon the Servant is an incarnation of God’s Wisdom. 
As endowed with the true gnosis Jesus is the ‘‘Son’’ who reveals 
the unknown Father (Mt. 11: 25-27—Lk. 10: 21 f.). But not even 
in Q is Jesus ever spoken of as the Servant. The baptismal Voice 
from heaven itself changes the phraseology of Is. 42: 1-3 in order 
to substitute ‘‘Son’’ for ‘‘Servant,’’ and the Temptations interpret 
the title ‘‘Son.’’ As we have seen, in Q where Jesus speaks of him- 
self it is as ‘‘the Son of Man’’ (Mt. 11: 19=—Lk. 7:34). The occur- 
rence of the unexplained title Son of Man in Mark is one of very 
many indications that the source represented by Q is employed. 
But we arrive but a single stage further back when we come to Q. 
Here too the Christology presupposes both a Son of David Chris- 
tology (Mt. 4: 8-10=Lk. 4: 5-8) and also a Son of Man Christology, 
of which little more than the title seems to be retained, perhaps in 
a universalistic sense; as when in the Lukan pedigree ‘‘ Adam,’’ not 
**David,’’ is the ‘‘Son of God.’’ But the Q writer’s own Christology 
is an incarnation doctrine. Jesus is the Servant of Jehovah. He is 
also an incarnation of the revealing and redeeming Wisdom of God. 
The factors begin to be intelligible, but even Q does not employ one 
factor only. Its Christology is still composite. 

As in Paul the Servant Christology is also present in Mark, and 
is endorsed. But it does not lie on the surface. It is presupposed, 
or taken for granted. There is no explanation of Christ’s suffering, 
which is said on two occasions to be ‘‘instead’’ (avr¢) or ‘‘on behalf 
(irép) of many’”’ (10:45; 14:24). The reader must supply from 
some other source the knowledge that Christ ‘‘was delivered up’’ 
for the transgression of Israel. Indirectly and incidentally he dis- 
covers that a fulfilment of Isaian prophecy is the thread which 
unites certain elements of Mark’s passion story. But in the absence 
of other documents he would surely find it difficult to make out 
what was meant by references such as Mk. 9:12b, or Mk. 14: 49. 
Already in Q the title ‘‘Servant’’ had completely disappeared, 
supplanted by ‘‘the Son of Man”’ and ‘‘the Son.’’ In Mark (unlike 
Q) the Isaian conception itself is obsolescent. Jesus still inculcates 
the principle ministrare non ministrari, rebuking by it the selfish 
ambition of the Twelve. He avers that he himself by his work (and 
especially by his death) gives it supreme illustration. But these are 


228 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


editorial summaries. The reader must go elsewhere for the data 
which justify them. It is not in Mark but in Q that we find Jesus’ 
work thus characterized. It is not Mark but the Special Source 
which systematically presents him as fulfilling the Isaian ideal of 
the Servant. Thus the Servant Christology lies in the background 
of Mark’s thought just as in Paul’s. It is not advanced in a creative 
sense, nor argued as in Q. It is presupposed and endorsed. 

In general terms, therefore, and so far as the main factors of the 
doctrine are concerned, the Christology of Paul and of Mark are 
the same. Both presuppose and at the same time reject the Son of 
David Christology of the Jerusalem caliphate, using the same Scrip- 
ture passage (Ps. 110:1) in opposition to it. Both utilize and en- 
dorse the Servant Christology, building upon the fundamental 
Isaian passages, but without directly appealing to them. Both uti- 
lize, and to a greater or less extent endorse the Son of Man Chris- 
tology; but in Paul’s case at least, and probably also in some degree 
in Mark’s, there is modification and universalization of the sense. 
Both finally rest in the title Son of God as most expressive of the 
reality. Most of this is true, it would seem, of Q also, while in addi- 
tion we find here as in Paul, but not in Mark, a ‘Wisdom’ Chris- 
tology. As an incarnation of the Wisdom of God Jesus does his 
mighty works and reveals the unknown Father (Mt. 11: 2-30=Lk. 
7: 18-385; 10:21 f.). The Q passage Mt. 11: 25-27—Lk. 10: 21 f. is 
justly called ‘‘ Johannine,’’ for it does involve an incarnation doc- 
trine. But its Christ incarnates not the Logos, but the ‘Wisdom’ 
of God. 

As we shall see, the broadest divergence comes at this point, for 
Mark, like the later Synoptists, is destitute of metaphysics; whereas 
Paul’s Christology, like that of Q, is distinctly an incarnation doc- 
trine, as the Ephesian evangelist very well knows. He therefore 
makes explicit the Logos doctrine which in the Pauline Epistles is 
only imphed. Mark’s Christology may perhaps, therefore, in a broad 
sense be termed Pauline. For such a combination of the primitive 
Jewish elements, in such proportion and with such result, cannot 
well be imagined apart from the teaching of Paul. We do not now 
refer to actual literary employment of the existing Epistles. To 
these, or to some of them, Mark may, or may not, have had access. 
That is a question for later determination. But Pauline teaching 
must have been current when this Gospel was composed. That is an 
inference which might perhaps be reasonably drawn from the phe- 
nomena already advanced. It will become more clearly apparent 
from the phenomena to which we must next proceed, the speculative 
Christology of Paul, embodying his conceptions of preéxistence. 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 229 


These factors unknown to Mark have to do with the Pauline Wis- 
dom or Logos doctrine, and are related on the one side to Q, on the 
other to the Fourth Gospel. If reflected at all in Mark it is only 
through embodied sources. But Pauline Christology cannot be de- 
fined without an analysis of Pauline metaphysic and its relation to 
Jewish and Hellenistic ideas. 

Paul insists on limiting his thought of Jesus to the operation of 
God ‘‘in’’ him, just as he considers his own life to be ‘‘ Christ living 
in’’ himself. Jesus was the expected Messiah simply as he brought 
to completion the redemptive work of God for humanity, which 
‘according to the scriptures of the prophets’’ was to be accom- 
plished through Israel, God’s Servant, chosen to make His name 
known and his law observed throughout the universe of personal 
being. Through the agency of Christ God restores the true and 
filial relation of the world to himself. He does this in the first in- 
stance by “‘delivering him up’’ to the cross. For only so, according 
to Paul, could God forgive (“‘justify’’) even the ungodly. They 
must come to him as adherents of Jesus, embued with the same 
spirit. But without the resurrection the cross would have been use- 
less. To begin with, there would be no heavenly Intercessor to plead 
for sinners before the throne of divine justice. Forgiveness would 
be lacking. We should be ‘‘yet in our sins’’ (I Cor. 15:17). More 
important still, we should be powerless to live the Godlike life, even 
though knowing and appreciating it. To live this ‘‘spiritual’’ life 
one must have an infusion of the Spirit of God. This is as indis- 
pensable as the inbreathing of the breath of life into Adam. With 
the new life conveyed by this Spirit from heaven the believer is 
‘‘created again in the ‘image.’ ’’ He becomes a Son of God, ‘‘con- 
formed to the ‘image’ ’’ of God’s Son. Thus Christ becomes a sec- 
ond, spiritual Adam, “‘the firstborn of many brethren.’’ He is 
made a life-giving spirit. The second, spiritual creation is accom- 
plished, for which the present creation, subjected to a false control 
(‘‘vanity’’=Hebr. aven, that is, the opposite of divine control), 
still groans and travails in pain, waiting for the adoption, the bring- 
ing of all personality into the filial relation to God. This is the 
‘‘manifestation of the sons of God.’’ 

All this is brought about through the gift of the Spirit. Hence 
it is this gift of the Spirit, sent down from heaven after Christ’s 
resurrection, which constitutes the essence of Redemption and God’s 
triumph, through his Messiah, over the powers of darkness and 
death. It is Christ’s own spirit; for it is that which made him what 
he was, characterizing his life. At the same time it is God’s Spirit, 
for it is the Spirit of Adoption which made Jesus the Firstborn, 


230 | THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


and endows those who receive it with power to become like him. 
Paul ascribes ‘‘miracles,’’ ‘‘prophecy,’’ ‘‘tongues,’’ ‘‘knowledge’’ 
(yous), and other ‘‘spiritual gifts’’ to the possession of this divine 
Spirit, as did others in his time. Many were so impressed with these 
more spectacular phenomena that they forgot the more essential, 
‘‘abiding’’ gifts of moral quality, faith, hope, and, supremely, love. 
For it is the moral gifts which produce the Christlikeness, and 
which must therefore be regarded as representing the redemptive 
design. At Corinth preference for the spectacular gifts was a com- 
mon fault. It was doubtless equally common at Rome, and it is 
certainly characteristic of the Gospel of Mark. We have seen that 
it is much less characteristic of the Second Source, and we may 
have occasion to see other embodied material in Mark which differs 
from the evangelist’s point of view. But our present task concerns 
the Pauline Christology and the basis on which it rests. Everything 
in it depends on ‘‘the Gift of the Spirit.’’ 

Needless to reiterate that Paul’s doctrine of justification rests 
upon the Isaian doctrine of the suffering Servant. He explicitly 
testifies that he ‘‘received’’ it. We have every reason to regard it 
as primitive. It almost certainly roots itself in the religious experi- 
ence of Peter after his denial and ‘‘turning again,’’ and is at all 
events dominant in the stream of tradition particularly associated 
with Peter’s name. 

Paul’s doctrine of Sanctification or Life in the Spirit is more 
distinctively his own. It is argued, not presupposed. Still it is per- 
haps even less understood than his doctrine of justification through 
the cross, difficult as that has been found. In both cases the most 
hopeful method is the genetic. One must trace out the factors, and 
in the case of Paul’s doctrine of Life in the Spirit Jewish literature 
furnishes the more important parallels, much as we may owe to 
modern studies in comparative religion which place in the fore- 
ground the Hellenistic ‘‘mysteries.’’ 

Paul’s Incarnation doctrine, and especially his doctrine of im- 
mortality as the aim of creation (II Cor. 5:5), has undoubted 
affinities with Wisdom of Solomon (cf. Sap. 1:18 ff.; 2:23 f.). It 
probably takes something of its phraseology, possibly even of its 
content, directly from contemporary mystery-religion. But it should 
not escape our notice that the rabbinic theology in which Paul was 
brought up, especially the more liberal type of Pharisaism repre- 
sented by such names as Gamaliel, is not wholly lacking in the 
fundamental ideas which constitute the essence of Paul’s ‘‘gospel.”’ 
Also we may do well to note that there are two types of primitive 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 231 


Christian literature, practically unrepresented in Mark, which pre- 
serve elements identical with these. | 

Paul’s doctrine of the creative, revealing, and redemptive Spirit 
of God incarnate in Jesus is essentially a Wisdom doctrine. We 
find the same throughout the Wisdom literature, but especially in 
Wisdom of Solomon. Israel is here the ‘‘just man’’ of Plato, in the 
form of the suffering Servant of Isaiah, the ‘‘Son of God’’ (Sap. 
2: 13-23). By his knowledge (of God) he redeems the world (2: 18, 
22; 3:8 f.). The great leaders of Israel, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, 
Solomon, were embued with this wisdom-spirit from God which 
makes men “‘friends of God and prophets,’’ and is in its nature 
‘near to immortality.’’ The ‘‘servants’’ or ‘‘sons’’ of God thus be- 
come the redeemers of the world, though no trace appears in Wis- 
dom of Solomon of that individual Servant-Son, who should be 
supreme agent of God in this redemptive task. In Q we have many 
points of contact with this conception, in particular the utilization 
of the Isaian Servant-ideal in conjunction with that of the revealing 
“‘Son.’’ This, as we have seen, is the distinctive Christology of Q. 
It is as remote as possible from the Son of Man, or apocalyptic, 
Christology, so that the use of the title Son of Man in Q seems a 
foreign, alien element, not explicable unless the term is used in 
some adapted sense. Some Lukan passages (3:38; 10: 30-37) sug- 
gest a universalistic or humanitarian sense as that imposed upon it, 
much as moderns have attempted to do. 

Another New Testament writing which the skill and industry of 
Prof. J. H. Ropes has now fully demonstrated to be of the char- 
acteristic Wisdom type is the so-called Epistle of James, which can 
hardly be said to contain a Christology, and whose soteriology is 
so peculiar that critics such as Massebieau and Spitta have denied 
altogether its Christian origin, regarding it as a slightly retouched 
Jewish Wisdom tract. Nevertheless while the writer’s interest is 
-(as usual in the Wisdom writings) concentrated on the practical 
side of religion, subordinating doctrine to practical morality, the 
Epistle has a distinct soteriology of its own, whose relation to the 
general Wisdom ideal is interesting and significant. 

Redemption, individual and social, is accomplished according to 
James, it is true, by means of a “‘royal law,’’ a “‘perfect law of 
liberty,’’ which may be used as a mirror of the soul, to correct its 
defects (Jas. 1: 23-25; 2:8). In this our Christian ‘diatribe’ (for 
the ‘‘Epistle’’ belongs really to the class of Cynic or Stoic homilies) 
stands quite in line with that element of the Wisdom literature 
which is by far the more conspicuous, and which we may designate 


232 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


‘ 


‘‘onomie.’’ It prescribes the ‘‘way’’ or ‘‘walk’’ of life, and corre- 
sponds to the halakha (‘‘walk,’’ ‘‘conduct’’) of Synagogue teach- 
ine. But the poetic element, embodying the dream and hope of the 
writer, his aspiration and ideal, his ‘‘gospel,’’ is not absent. In the 
Wisdom literature this ‘gospel’ element appears almost invariably 
in poetic form, corresponding to the nature of its content; so that 
the term ‘‘lyric’’ may well be used to distinguish it from ‘‘gnomie’’ 
Wisdom, the Wisdom of ‘law.’ In James the soteriology comes out 
in the opening exhortation to pray unwaveringly for the heavenly 
gift of ‘‘wisdom,’’ which God bestows generously on all that ask, 
disregarding ill-desert. As Giver of all good, who like the sun sends 
down universal blessing, God thus makes of men a sort of firstfruit 
harvest from his creation. The ‘‘word of truth’’ is the procreative 
agent sown in the soil of men’s minds. Men receive this ‘“‘implanted 
word,’’ and by obedience to it are saved and made friends of God. 
The ‘‘Wisdom that cometh from above’’ is thus the agent of man’s 
salvation. Pure and peace-loving it is easy to be entreated, char- 
acterized by ‘‘meekness,’’ and bringing forth the fruit of righteous- 
ness in peace (3: 13-18; cf. I Cor. 13:4 ff.). Wisdom, as thus con- 
ceived, is far more than knowledge or precept. It is not letter of 
law, but a God-given spirit. Nowhere in the New Testament have 
we such close affinity as in James with the ideal of the Higher 
Righteousness of the Sermon on the Mount, nowhere so many re- 
flections of this great Q discourse. Also there is real though subtle 
affinity with Paul’s doctrine of Life in the Spirit. However deeply 
hidden, the Redemption doctrine is not wholly wanting in James. 
It is that of Christianized Jewish Wisdom. The Spirit of the Father 
sent down to dwell in men is their sanctification and peace. Here is 
fundamental kinship with Paul, however remote in other respects 
this writer may be from Paul’s point of view. 

If now we turn from these Hellenistic, Graeco-Hebraic writings 
to those of the Palestinian Synagogue, we shall find a corresponding 
distinction between law and gospel, precept and faith. The poetry 
of national aspiration centres upon the story of redemption embody- 
ing the history of Israel as Jehovah’s Servant, and forecasting the 
achievement of the divine ideal. Hageadic teaching is all concerned 
with this, the very term haggada (‘‘narrative,’’ “‘tale’’) conveying 
the suggestion of the redemptive drama. Its complement, halakha, 
‘“precept,’’ ‘“commandment,’’ we have already defined. Both are 
included under the term Torah, “‘revelation,’’ ‘‘teaching.’’ Many 
take the word torah to mean mere ‘‘commandment,’’ just as they 
are blind to the poetry of Wisdom, and think only of the dry 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 233 


proverbs of gnomic Wisdom. But let us hear the protest of Schechter 
in Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, p. 117 (1923) : 


The term Law or Nomos is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word 
Torah. The legalistic element, which might rightly be called the Law, 
represents only one side of the Torah. To the Jew the word Torah means 
teaching or instruction of any kind. It may be either a general principle or 
a specific injunction, whether it be found in the Pentateuch or in other 
parts of the Scriptures, or even outside of the canon. The juxtaposition 
in which Torah and Mitzwoth, Teaching and Commandments, are to be 
found in the rabbinic literature implies already that the former means 
something more than merely the Law. Torah and Mitzwoth are a comple- 
ment to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, “they borrow from each 
other, as wisdom and understanding—charity and lovingkindness—the 
moon and the stars,” but they are not identical. To use the modern phrase- 
ology, to the rabbinic Jew Torah was both an institution and a faith. 


To confirm Schechter’s important distinction between Torah and 
Mitzwah it is only needful to apply it to the great Isaian definition 
of Israel’s mission to the world as Jehovah’s Servant (Is. 42: 1-4). 
He is sent ‘‘to declare mitzwah to the Gentiles.’’ Not through strife 
or violence, but in meekness and healing gentleness he will send 
forth precept (mitzwah) to its triumph, and the Isles (of Greece) 
shall wait for his divine revelation (torah). The sentiment is that of 
Dt. 4: 6-8. 

Israel, or at least the Pharisees, who ‘‘compassed heaven and 
earth to make one proselyte,’’ were not oblivious of this mission to 
the world, that Jehovah’s name might be sanctified universally, 
and the sovereignty of his will be extended throughout earth even 
as in heaven. To continue Schechter’s interpretation of the ideal 
of Torah (p. 183) : 


If you will not make known my divinity (divine nature) to the nations 
of the world, even at the cost of your lives [the martyrs are known to 
adherents of the Synagogue as “those who went through fire and through 
water for the sanctification of the Name” ], you shall suffer for this iniquity, 
said God. Though indeed the whole of creation has the duty to join in his 
praise and to bear witness to his divinity (divine power), Israel is especially 
commanded to invite all mankind to serve God and to believe in him, even 
as Abraham did, who made God beloved by all the creatures. And so in- 
tensely should we love him (as required by the Shema) that we should 
also make others love him. For those who make God beloved by mankind 
are much greater than the mere lovers of him (as Israelites are called in 
II Esdr. 6: 58). By this acceptance of the Torah, Israel made peace between 
God and his world, the ultimate end being that its influence will reach the 
heathen too, and all the gentiles will one day be converted to the worship 
of God; for the Torah “is not the Torah of the Priests, nor the Torah of 


234 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the Levites, nor the Torah of the Israelites, but the Torah of Man (Torath 
ha-Adam), and its gates are open to receive the righteous nation which 
keepeth the truth and those who are good and upright in their hearts.” 


It is hardly fair to the great Apostle to the Gentiles, the Pharisee 
of Pharisees, to think him ignorant of an ideal such as this, or un- 
influenced by it. If we recognize here the opening petitions of the 
Lord’s prayer, the spirit of the Teacher who gave his life for the 
‘‘sanctification of the Name,’’ even as he had given his labor to 
the establishment of the ‘‘sovereignty’’ (‘‘Kingdom’’=malkuth) of 
God—if we recall his parable of the Samaritan who made known 
‘‘a Torah not of the Priests, nor of the Levites, nor of the Israelites, 
but a Torah of humanity,’’ even as he called himself “‘the Son of 
Man,’’ we ought also to recognize the gospel of Jesus’ great convert 
from the Pharisees, who felt it his special mission ‘‘to make God 
beloved by all the creation,’’ and by its acceptance of “‘the law of 
Christ,’’ to ‘‘make peace between God and his world.”’ 

But if Paul be thus saturated with the Isaian ideal of the Servant 
who ‘‘makes peace between God and his world,’’ suffering ‘‘for the 
sanctification of the Name,’’ why does he not apply this title to 
Christ? Why does he not speak of him explicitly as ‘‘the suffering 
Servant’’? It is because he reserves for Christ a higher title, even 
as the servant has now become ‘‘exalted and very high’’ (Is. 52: 
13; cf. Phil. 2:9). The missionary task falls now to ‘‘the Israel of 
God,’’ and especially to those particularly called to be God’s “‘ wit- 
nesses’’ to ‘‘the gospel of peace.’’ Christ is ‘‘the Spirit’’ (II Cor. 
3:18). His work in the flesh is done. He is now what he was before 
‘“he became poor for our sake.’’ He was then and is now what he 
manifested himself while on earth to be, ‘‘the Wisdom of God, and 
the Power of God’’ (I Cor. 1:24). Christ suffered for our sakes? 
Yes; but ‘‘rather’’ he was raised again for our justification. For 
pardon was always ready at God’s hand. But mere forgiveness to 
one not inwardly transformed by the Spirit is inconceivable of a 
God of righteousness. The indispensable thing secured by the Re- 
deemer is his gift of the Spirit of sons. Therefore Christ is to Paul 
no longer merely the Servant, but the Firstborn of many brethren 
conformed to his own likeness by a ‘‘new creation.’’ He is the Sec- 
ond Adam, the Son of God. 

This redemptive function of the divine Spirit is what the rabbi 
ascribes to Torah. 


For the Torah came down from heaven with all the necessary instru- 
ments (for human redemption): humility, righteousness (goodness) and 
uprightness (cf. Mic. 6: 8)—and even her reward was in her. And man has 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 235 


only to apply these tools to find in the Torah peace, strength, life, light, 
bliss, happiness, joy, and freedom.* 


Unfortunately Paul the Pharisee had not fully grasped this as the 
effect of ‘‘the Law.’’ Paul the Christian ascribes this effect to ‘‘the 
Spirit of Adoption’’ sent down from heaven as the gift of God in 
Christ, restoring the world to order and peace. Still the idea was 
probably not wanting to Judaism even at that time; for it is the 
same which in the Wisdom literature is ascribed to the creative, 
revealing, and redemptive Spirit of God whose indwelling makes 
men his ‘‘sons.’’ Only, the Synagogue held that Moses brought it 
down from heaven in the form of Torah, whereas Paul felt it to be 
incarnate in the person of Christ. Torah and Wisdom are constantly 
made equivalent in the Wisdom writings (Heclus. 24:23; Bar. 4:1). 
It is because Torah is not the letter only but also the spirit; not the 
requirement only, but also the perception of its sweet reasonable- 
ness and the love of it; not law only, but gospel also; not the earthly 
precept only, but the Spirit of Adoption that brings men to its 
obedience as sons of the Highest.‘ 

Schechter has unfortunately no better term than ‘‘Theosophist”’ 
for men such as Paul ‘‘who had already come under the sway of 
Hellenistic influences.’’ But to such men the Torah was, as he truly 
says: “The very expression of God’s Wisdom.’’ Such teachers in- 
evitably “‘would, so far as it is consistent with Biblical notions, 
elevate it into an emanation of God’s essence, and endow it with 


8 Schechter, ibid., p. 135, quoting Deut. R. 

4The Pharisean ideal is admirably reflected in a writing practically con- 
temporary with Paul, the so-called Book of Jubilees, or Little Genesis. In the 
opening chapter of this work the author describes Moses’ prayer of intercession 
for the people, after their sin at Horeb (Jub. i., 23 ff.). It will be seen from the 
terms of this prayer that even Pharisaism was not without some consciousness 
that something more than a commandment was needful, in short that God must 
“‘ereate in them a clean heart and renew a right spirit within them,’’ and thus 
‘‘write his law in their hearts.’’? The passage is as follows, slightly abbreviated 
at the close. God answers Moses: 

‘“T know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stiffneckedness, and 
they will not be obedient till they confess their own sin and the sin of their 
fathers. And after this they will turn to me in all uprightness and with all their 
heart and all their soul. And I will circumcise the foreskin of their heart, and 
the foreskin of the heart of their seed, and I will create in them a holy spirit, 
and I will cleanse them so that they will not turn away from me from that day 
unto eternity. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments, 
and I will be their Father and they shall be my children. And they shall all be 
called children of the Living God. And every angel and spirit shall know that 
these are my children and that I am their Father in uprightness and truth, and 
that I love them (cf. Rom. 8:19; Heb. 1:6). . . . Until I descend and dwell 
with them throughout eternity.’ 


236 . THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


a premundane existence, reaching almost to infinity.’’ Here is in 
truth the parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. 
Palestinian Pharisaism tended more and more to legalism. It ex- 
alted mitzwah and lost the higher implications of Torah. Hellenistic 
Pharisaism thought of Torah as ‘‘not the Torah of the Israelites, 
but as the Torah of Man.’’ Both came to realize that not the com- 
mandment only, but the strength to fulfil it, must be of that Wis- 
dom which cometh from above as ‘‘a good and perfect gift, coming 
down from the Father of Lights,’’ ‘‘implanted’’ in us, and ‘‘able 
to save our souls, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of the crea- 
tion.’’ But Palestinian Pharisaism issued in rabbinic Judaism. 
panes Judaism passed largely over into the Church. 

To appreciate the higher Christology of Paul it is quite as need- 
ful to have some knowledge of Pharisaism in its noblest and purest 
aspirations, both Hebrew and Hellenistic, as to understand all ‘‘mys- 
teries.’’ We will not deny that Paul knew the theosophy of Hel- 
lenism, still less that Pharisaism in both its phases had long been 
influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. But it is surely also true 
that Paul during all the formative period of his life was “‘a Hebrew 
of Hebrews,’’ ‘‘a Pharisee of Pharisees,’’ and that at no time of his 
life did he abandon his inherited point of view. 

Before we leave the subject of Paul’s redemptive ideal, his ‘‘gos- 
pel of peace’’ or “‘reconciliation of the world,’’ which modern 
analysis terms his soteriology, we have still one further aspect to 
consider; for it is here that contact is made on the one side with 
the particular work of Jesus, on the other with another of those 
primitive phases of Christology which survive in the discourses of 
the early chapters of Acts and some other little heeded remnants 
of ancient Jewish-christian literature, the so-called Clementine, or 
Ebionite, writings, in which systematically the title for Christ is 
‘‘that Prophet,’’ or more specifically the ‘‘Prophet like unto 
Moses.’’ 

Christ as the second Moses predicted in Dt. 18:15 plays a central 
part in the Speech of Stephen (Acts 7: 17-40), and in quite a series 
of connected passages, though unknown elsewhere in Synoptic 
literature. The source from which Luke takes this demonstration 
that God had sent Jesus as both “‘a ruler and a judge’’ just as he 
had sent Moses, and that both had been at first rejected, only to 
prove in the end the ‘‘Redeemer’’ (Avtpwrjs) sent by God ‘‘with the 
hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush,’’ can hardly 
be any other than that from which in Lk. 24: 19-21 the disciples on 
the way to Emmaus confess that Jesus had been ‘‘a prophet mighty 
in deed and word (cf. Acts 7:22) before God and all the people’’ 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 237 


and that they had hoped that this was ‘‘he who should redeem 
(Aurpotc@a) Israel.’’? The prophecy is recalled again in the Speech 
of Peter (Acts 3: 13-23), where Jesus is spoken of as the Servant 
(verses 13, 26) in verses 22-24, perhaps an addition to the original 
form : 


Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from 
among’ your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken in all things 
whatsoever he shall speak unto you. And it shall be that every soul that 
shall not hearken to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among 
the people. Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed 
after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. 


Now Paul also has his own conception of Jesus as the second 
Moses, a Redeemer of Israel, though not as ‘‘ruler and judge.”’ 
Paul’s conception of the supreme work of Moses is as a Mediator 
with God. Like the Rabbis he honors Moses because at Horeb, after 
the people’s sin, he went up into the Mount to make intercession 
on their behalf, offering his own life “‘for the many,’’ and obtained 
forgiveness for them. A revelation of God as ‘‘merciful and gra- 
cious, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin’’ was there granted 
to Moses on his request that he might ‘‘see the face’’ of God. Paul 
recalls this in II Cor. 3:7 ff., speaking of it as a ‘‘transfiguration.’’ 
For the time being Moses’ face shone with the reflection of the glory 
of God, so that until it faded away he was fain to put a veil upon 
his face, that the children of Israel might not perceive its tran- 
siency. In like manner ‘‘ministers of the new covenant,’’ says Paul, 
have a reflection of the glory of the forgiving God. Seen “‘in the 
face of Jesus Christ’’ it is reflected in their own faces. Only, this 
reflection ‘‘as in a mirror’’ does not fade away. It increases from 
one degree of glory to another, till we ourselves are transfigured 
into the very likeness of the glorified Christ (II Cor. 3: 18-4:6). 
There is thus a ‘‘ministration (dxovia) of Moses’’ prefiguring the 
Christian. In a sense he became the Mediator of a covenant of for- 
giveness for Israel. But this was a covenant of the letter, which 
without the Spirit (not given as yet) was not “‘of life,’’ but “‘a 
ministration of death, written and engraven upon stones.’’ Like the 
Rabbis Paul thinks of the Law which Moses brought as ‘‘a school- 
master,’’> but for him redemption was not a matter of ‘‘the educa- 
tion of God’s creatures,’’ but of the gift of the Spirit of Life and 
righteousness. 

Paul also, and more frequently, thinks of Moses in his mediation 
of Torah as prefiguring Christ in his mediation of the Spirit. In 


5 Schechter, ibid., p. 136, quoting Gen. R. 1. 


238 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Gal. 3:19 this theme is first touched upon. It comes to fullest ex- 
pression in Eph. 4: 10 ff. where the gifts of the Spirit are contrasted 
with the gift of the Torah. For according to rabbinic interpreta- 
tion of the quoted Psalm (Ps. 68:18) Moses when he ascended 
(Mount Sinai) brought down from heaven this supreme gift of 
gifts. In the Targum of the Psalm it is Moses who ‘‘at Sinai in the 
holy place’’ after he had ‘‘led the captivity (of Israel in Egypt) 
captive,’’ “‘ascended on high’’ and ‘‘gave gifts to the children of 
men.’’® Or as in Shabbath 88b the verse was referred to Moses’ 
capture of the bride whom Israel wedded at Sinai, the Torah. For 
Moses, it was said, ‘ascended to heaven and captured the Torah, 
in spite of the resistance of the angels, who were most reluctant to 
allow this treasure to be taken from among them.’”’ For Moses as- 
cended in order to obtain forgiveness for the people’s sin, even at 
the cost of his own life, so that the Targum on Cant. 3:3 makes him 
say, “‘I will ascend into the high heavens and intercede for you.’’ 
But when he descended with the heavenly gift, and pledged Israel 
by a sacred covenant to observe its commandments Israel’s life was 
committed thereby to the supreme vocation of Moses, that of ‘‘mak- 
ing peace between heaven and earth’’ (Sanhedrin 99b). 

In Paul also ‘‘the gift of Christ’’ is that ‘‘unity of the Spirit 
which is the bond of peace,’’ making reconciliation between heaven 
and earth. But it was not won by the ascent of Moses at Sinai to 
win the Torah from the angels. It was won by Christ, when through 
the cross he triumphed over the principalities and the powers, mak- 
ing spoil of their treasure.® It was won by the eternal Spirit of the 


6 Lehoz mattenan libnet nasha, ‘‘thou hast given gifts to the children of 
men.’’ This rendering involves the transposition of two letters in the word 
halaq of the Hebrew text, making it mean ‘‘ distribute as spoil’’ instead of 
‘‘receive’’ (laqah). This change was apparently made on the assumption that 
it was more suitable for the conqueror to distribute spoil than to receive tribute. 
Whatever the occasion it is the reading followed by the Peshito and the Greek 
known to Justin (Dial., xxxix., lxxxvii.). The Targum, in applying the ascen- 
sion on high to Moses, naturally takes the ‘‘ gifts to the children of men’’ to 
be the Torah given by Moses on his return from the Mount. The sense would 
hardly have been altered had it been rendered ‘‘received a gift for men.’’ 

7 Quoted by Schechter, ibid., p. 130. 

8 This feature of the spoliation of the angels is added in the Colossian parallel 
(Col. 2:15; ef. II Cor. 2:14). Dibelius in his Geisterwelt im Glauben des 
Paulus, pp. 23 ff., points out that in the heavenly council according to Jewish 
belief God is always on the side of Israel, while the angels are opposed. It 
probably appears in this connection because the word meaning ‘‘ distributed 
gifts’’ (halaq) is the technical term for the distribution of booty, or ‘‘cap- 
tured’’ spoil; cf. Is. 53: 12: ‘‘He shall divide the spoil (halaq) with (LXX 
‘of’) the mighty ones’’ (that is, according to early Christian interpretation, 
the angels). 


Pid a 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 239 


revealing and redeeming Wisdom of God, which descended to be- 
come incarnate in Christ, and in his resurrection ascended far 
above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. This life-giving 
Spirit of God, which is no other than the Lord himself, is the un- 
speakable, infinite gift, distributed through the world by the Church 
which is his body, as the life-blood is distributed through the chan- 
nels of the arterial system for the upbuilding of the whole (Eph. 


.4;1-16). 


Much was made in the religious teaching of the Synagogue of the 
mediation of Moses, whether as offering his life for the forgiveness 
of the people, ‘‘the one for the many’’ (Ex. 32:31 f.), or as bring- 
ing down the Torah from heaven as the basis on which Jehovah 
would consent to dwell among them, reconciling the world to him- 
self. In rabbinic Judaism there were legends of the ascent of Moses 
to heaven, in Philo of his transfiguration by the vision of God 
‘‘after he had been invited to share in divine incorruption,’’ in the 
Wisdom literature applications of the passage Dt. 30:12 f. about 
ascending to heaven to bring the Torah thence, or procuring it from 


‘beyond the sea, which recall and show the significance of Paul’s 


saying in Rom. 10:6: 

The righteousness which is of faith saith thus: Say not in thine heart, 
Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:) or, Who 
shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart: 
that is, the word of faith, which we preach. 


One must place alongside of this, to appreciate what sort of spir- 
itual Christ this is of which Paul speaks, the passage from Bar. 
3:29: 


Who hath gone up into heaven and taken her [Wisdom] and brought 
her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea and found her, 
and will bring her for choice gold? . . .[God] hath found out all the way 
of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel that 
is beloved of him. After this did she appear upon earth, and was conversant 
with men. 


As the divine Spirit of Wisdom Christ may be said to have de- 
scended from heaven when, becoming poor for our sakes, and ‘‘tak- 
ing on him the form of a slave,’’? he was “‘sent forth (by the 
Father) born of a woman, born under the Law.’’ Paul applies the 
passage of Deuteronomy about the Torah in heaven and on earth 


9 The expression belongs to the Servant Christology and is taken from Is. 
53:11, LXX: dixasov 8 SovAevovra toddots ‘‘the Just one, who became a good slave 
for many.’’ 


240 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


to the ‘‘spiritual’’ Christ, because he thinks of the work of Jesus 
supremely as the work of bringing down from heaven to earth that 
sweet spirit of order, love, and good-will which belongs to heaven, 
and alone can bring about the kingdom of God on earth when it 
pervades humanity. The Lord is this Spirit (II Cor. 3:17), hence 
language applicable to it can be applied to him. One need not seek 
to bring him up from the dead or down from heaven (Rom. 10:6), 
but his spirit must fill the earth. Thus, and thus alone can God be 
reconciled to his world, and the world to God. This gospel applies 
both to the individual, and to the social order. The gift of the Spirit 
—himself—is what makes Jesus a true ‘‘Christ,’’ a divine Savior 
of humanity. He must (spiritually) be brought down from heaven, 
as Baruch says of Wisdom, and the Rabbis of the Torah. 

But the Incarnation is not the whole of the Gospel. The Atone- 
ment is at least equally essential. Jesus, who (as we have it in I Pt. 
3: 18-22) “‘was put to death indeed in the flesh, but in the spirit 
was made alive . . . through the resurrection’’ is ‘‘on the right 
hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and 
powers being made subject unto him.’’ Paul also speaks of ‘‘bring- 
ing up (the spiritual) Christ’’ from the depths, as Baruch uses the 
Torah passage in application to bringing Wisdom from beyond the 
sea, because it was as a resurrection gift that through him the 
Spirit was sent forth from the Father of Lights.*° But the bringing 
down and the bringing up again are not a still unsolved problem 
of redemption. These have been already accomplished. As the Serip- 
ture saith, “‘The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart.’’ It is, says Paul, ‘‘the word of faith which we preach.’’ In 
that gospel there is salvation for all; for the same Lord is Lord of 
all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for ‘‘ Whosoever shall 
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’’ This is the sum- 
mary of Paul’s ‘‘gospel’’ in Rom. 10: 6-13. We shall have occasion 
later to see how it appears in defending his apostleship, when in 
II Cor. 3: 6-6: 10 he compares ‘‘the ministry of the new covenant”’ 
with ‘‘the ministration of Moses’’ in obtaining forgiveness, and 
bringing down from heaven the gift of the Torah. For according to 
Paul ‘‘life and immortality were brought to light through the gos- 
pel ACCS im eek) on 

We have attempted thus to give that Incarnation doctrine which 
is the foundation of Paul’s Christology, becoming the Logos doc- 


10 With this expression of Jas. 1:17 cf. Bar. 3: 33-37. 

11 Passages from the Pastoral Epistles can be quoted only as Deutero-Pauline. 
In the present case the doctrine is not in question, hence the citation may be 
used for illustrative purposes. 


PAULINE AND MARKAN CHRISTOLOGY 241 


trine in the Ephesian Gospel, although it finds no direct reflection 
in Mark or later Synoptic tradition, because the Pauline Christology 
is unintelligible without it. But we have already seen that it is no 
original invention of Paul’s. It is the Wisdom doctrine of the Hel- 
lenistic Synagogue, the Torah doctrine of the Rabbis. In Christian 
form it finds clear expression in the Q material, especially the 
Hymn of Wisdom Mt. 11: 25-27=Lk. 10:21 f., whether this be 
earlier or later than Paul. Fortunately a statement made by Clem- 
ent of Alexandria concerning the Hellenistic writing of ca. 100 
known as The Preaching of Peter enables us to say with certainty 
that this equivalence we have described between the spiritual Christ, 
Wisdom and Torah, is not mere fancy. Even the term Logos was 
probably current at an earlier date than the Fourth Gospel, and 
almost certainly in independence of it. For in three separate pas- 
sages (Strom. I, xxix. 182; IT, xv. 68, and Hcl. proph. 58) Clement 
tells us that in the Preaching the Lord was spoken to and spoken 
of as ‘‘Law and Word”’ (Adyos xai véuos, that is Logos and Torah). 
Recognizing candidly that the Christology of Mark is not Pauline 
in the sense of setting forth this Incarnation doctrine, even in its 
earliest forms—for the Voice from heaven at the Baptism relates 
only to election, not to preéxistence—we have still to enquire 
whether the embodied sources are equally without indication of it. 
As a western product the Roman Gospel could hardly be expected 
to deal comprehendingly with oriental mysticism. But it does not 
follow that the sources it incorporates, essentially Jewish as they 
are, should have no affinity with this subtler type of Paulinism. To 
this question of Indirect Pauline Influence we must next address 
ourselves. 


CHAPTER XVIII 
PAULINE INFLUENCE (a) INDIRECT 


ACQUAINTANCE of Mark with double-tradition material (Q) is a 
widely accepted result of the critical analysis of this Gospel, and in 
the study we have given to the question of its sources this result 
has been corroborated and extended. We have found a considerable 
body of evidence to prove the systematic use by Mark of the Special 
Source of Luke. The exact relation of this source to the “double- 
tradition’ material remains more or less obscure, and we have also 
found reason to think Luke used it in a later form than that known 
to Mark. He certainly combined with it another narrative, inferior 
and dependent, a source which perhaps combined Mark and the 
Special Source in a manner preluding Luke’s own. Leaving the 
obscurities for such further light as advancing science may bring, 
and limiting ourselves to the generally accepted results, the ques- 
tion of the date of Mark will necessarily involve at this point the 
date of the sources employed by this evangelist,. partly identical 
with Luke’s. For whether we speak of certain material character- 
ized in a certain way and for convenience labelled Q, or of sources 
from which this material, as well as other material differently 
characterized, must have been derived, the analysis of Mark has 
shown that various elements are distinguishable. Some factors of 
the work are basic, others superimposed. In geological terms we are 
not dealing with igneous rock, where all has been melted into a 
uniform mass, but with clearly stratified deposits, at least one of 
which can be brought into relation with one of the sources of Luke, 
if not precisely identified with it. Determination of the date of the 
ultimate complex will to some extent be determined by the date of 
this and other factors. Pauline teaching, as represented in the great 
Epistles of 50-60 a.v. being the chronological point of departure, 
our task involves comparison of the factors of Mark with this sys- 
tem of teaching, to determine (so far as possible) whether inter- 
relation exists, and if so the side on which priority lies. 

Among the elements intrinsically foreign to the character of 
Mark, and by their position and otherwise showing themselves to be 
superimposed, are two of closely kindred character, unmistakably 
Jewish. One of these, at least, seems distinctly to reflect the char- 
acteristic beliefs of Paul, beliefs so clearly based on his individual 


thin en al 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 243 


religious experience that they cannot otherwise be accounted for, 
and therefore must necessarily imply a later date in documents 
which employ or reflect them. The two elements referred to are the 
interpretative stories prefixed respectively to the first and second 
parts of Mark, which set forth under the device of vision and voice 
from heaven the “‘spiritual’’ (that is, externally invisible and 
inaudible) significance of the story related in the sequel. For while 
it appears probable that the evangelist personally takes the scenes 
described after the baptism of Jesus and after his acknowledgment 
by Peter as ‘‘the Christ’’ in 1:9-11 and 9:2-10 respectively as 
literal and concrete fact, no student of contemporary Synagogue 
teaching can fail to recognize in the literary forms of vision and 
bath gol, or ‘voice from heaven,’’ the characteristic methods em- 
ployed at the time for expressing ‘‘spiritual’’ perception. 

The western world has developed through ages of philosophical 
discussion a terminology of abstractions enabling it to express ideas 
pertaining to the invisible world in a scientific, or at least meta- 
physical, vocabulary. The oriental world is still, especially in its 
religious literature, at the poetic or mythopoetic stage, in which the 
imagination is called upon to furnish, under the forms of parable, 
fable, vision, or dream, the vehicle for the conveyance of the idea 
from mind to mind. The auditor (or reader) accustomed to this 
method feels no difficulty. Poetic convention is to him so familiar 
that he scarcely observes the transition as his mind is carried from 
the realm of the abstract to the concrete and back again. Let us 
suppose the point to be the conviction ‘‘borne in upon’’ some man 
of God. The Synagogue teacher declares, ‘‘An angel said to so and 
so, Do this or that,’’ or ‘‘The prophet saw this or that in vision,’’ 
or ‘‘heard it in a voice from heaven.’’ The hearer (or reader) does 
not ask what the angel looked like, whether he had wings or not. 
He does not ask whether the ‘‘daughter of a voice’’ sounded like 
thunder, or like a whisper. It does not occur to him to raise such 
questions, simply because he knows this is quite inmaterial and 
beside the point. Equally irrelevant would be questions about the 
inn-keeper’s appearance or costume in the parable of the Good 
Samaritan. The disciple gets the idea (which is simply that to the 
‘‘spiritual’’ eye or ear things would thus appear) and forgets all 
about the vehicle which conveyed it. Was it imagination, or fact? 
The question almost bewilders him. Was the murder of Hamlet’s 
father fable or fact? Who knows, or cares? It was the poetic (or re- 
ligious) truth that mattered, and that the reader grasps. 

Such is the nature of ‘‘The Midrash and its Poetry’’ as described 
by one of the greatest of Synagogue teachers of our own times. The 


244 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


chapter under this title in I. Abraham’s Short History of Jewish 
Interature, 1906, should be read in its entirety. We may quote only 
his definition : 


Midrash (‘study,’ ‘enquiry’) was in the first instance an explanation of 
the Scriptures. The explanation is often the clear, natural exposition of 
the text, and it enforces rules of conduct both ethical and ritual | halacha]. 
Midrash often penetrates [also] below the surface; and, while seeming to 
depart from the letter of the text, attempts to reach its spirit. In the Tal- 
mudie phrase Midrash is a hammer which wakes to shining life the sparks 
slumbering in the rock. The historical and moral traditions which clustered 
round the incidents and characters of the Bible soon received a more vivid 
setting. The poetical sense of the Rabbis expressed itself in a vast and 
beautiful array of legendary additions to the Bible, but the additions are 
always devised with a moral purpose, to prove motive or to analyze char- 
acter, to give point to a preacher’s homily or to inspire the imagination of 
the audience with nobler fancies. Besides being expository, the Midrash is, 
therefore, also didactic and poetical, the moral being conveyed in the guise 
of a narrative [haggada], amplifying and developing the contents of 
Scripture. The Midrash gives the results of that deep searching of the 
Seriptures which became second nature with the Jews, and it also repre- 
sents the changes and expansions of ethical and theological ideals as applied 
to a changing and growing life. 


Scarcely one of the great interpreters of the Gospels who brought 
to the task thorough acquaintance with contemporary teaching 
methods of the Synagogue has failed to be impressed with the close 
affinity between gospel story and Midrash. Again and again has the 
resemblance been noted; and naturally enough, since the teaching 
methods of the primitive Church were nothing else save adaptations 
of Synagogue methods. But hard-headed occidentals are slow to take 
in the poetry of the East. Not even Plato is allowed ungrudgingly 
his favorite adaptation of mythology. Moderns think he should have 
restricted himself to metaphysics and matter of fact. Clement, a 
well-read Alexandrian, and one who himself delights in allegory 
and symbolism, tells the story of the aged John and the Robber (a 
patent allegory on the two parables of the Shepherd seeking the 
Lost Sheep and the Lost Son ‘‘dead and alive again,’’ in Lk. 15: 
3-7, 11-32), and says in so many words that the story was related 
as a “‘myth.’’* Yet from Eusebius down well-nigh every borrower 
disregards the caveat and submits the story as report of fact, in- 
stead of expression of truth. 

We need feel no surprise, therefore, if a typical western evangel- 

1 MOGov ob p0Gov adda bvTa Abyor, that is, ‘‘A tale; yet not a mere tale, but one 


which conveys a true idea.’’ Clement thinks it may be fact, but knows that the 
originator aimed to give not fact, but truth. 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 245 


ist, systematically bent on picturing to the eye the wonders which 
to his mind are the chief proofs of the divine mission of Jesus, and 
systematically indifferent to the teaching, should take as literal 
matter of fact the midrashoth of vision and voice from heaven which 
in his Jewish sources had been related to convey the ‘‘spiritual’’ 
meaning of the two most momentous crises of the story. It is one 
of the proofs that these two sections at least (Mk. 1: 9-11 and 9: 
2-10) are borrowed by Mark from sources produced in the atmos- 
phere of the Synagogue, that besides their standing outside, or in- 
terrupting, the context, their intrinsic meaning is so unperceived 
by him. Whether the source (or sources) can be identified or not is 
of less importance to our present enquiry than this intrinsic mean- 
ing, and the relation (if relation there be in either case) to the 
teaching of Paul. 

The present writer has set forth elsewhere his conception of 
the process by which Pauline religious ideas were grafted upon 
primitive gospel story, though he can find no better designation for 
it than ‘‘the Paulinizing of Petrine tradition.’’”* Briefly, gospel 
story, whether of the sayings or doings of Jesus, had in the earlier 
times no other witness to cite than Peter. All evangelic report was 
‘“Petrine’’ in the sense of being invariably carried back to Peter 
as centre of the group of disciples. In large degree this must have 
represented real fact. We have the unimpeachable witness of Paul 
(Gal. 2:7) that Peter was regarded as charged from the very first 
in preéminent degree with this witness, and did in fact live up to 
the trust (I Cor. 9:5), though consenting, after hearing of Paul’s 
special commission, to limit himself to ‘‘the circumcision.’’ The 
exceptions to the rule that gospel tradition is ‘‘Petrine’’ are more 
apparent than real. The association of the name of ‘‘Matthew’’ 
with our first canonical Gospel cannot be traced back earlier than 
140, and however originated is certainly incorrect. Hence it may 
best be disregarded entirely. ‘‘John’’ is a patronymic for still later 
developments. 

But churches founded before the great Missionary Journeys of 
Acts 13:1 ff., churches which looked to Jerusalem as their mother, 
and to Peter as their great evangelizer (‘‘apostle’’), came into un- 
avoidable rivalry with those of the Greek-speaking world, most of 
which had Paul or his associates as their founders, and all of which 
looked to Paul as their chief spokesman and authority. As we learn 
from the Epistles, this rivalry brought into the foreground com- 
parisons (more or less odious) between the claims of Peter and 


2 Jesus and Paul, New York, 1920, pp. 154-167, and Religion and the Future 
Life, edited by E..H. Sneath, New York, 1922, pp. 263-283. 


246 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Paul respectively. Gal. 2: 1-21 lays bare the full extent of this un- 
fortunate development, which in Acts is assiduously concealed. It 
involved (1) the apostleship of Paul, a dispute in which Paul made 
his own authority equal to Peter’s by laying all emphasis on inward 
religious experience. Paul insisted on the divine revelation of the 
risen and glorified Christ ‘‘in’’ him, and ignored knowledge of ‘‘a 
Christ after the flesh,’’ minimizing mere acquaintance with the 
‘‘sayings and doings’’ which associates of Jesus’ ministry could 
report with far more authority than he. It involved (2) his ‘‘gos- 
pel,’’ which likewise laid all stress on ‘‘the word of the cross,’’ 
minimizing ‘‘commandments,’’ or interpretations of Christianity 
as a higher and better Law. Both ‘‘apostleship’’ and ‘‘gospel’’ of 
Paul are vehemently defended in Galatians. Both remain funda- 
mental. But the later correspondence shows a difference in develop- 
ment. At Corinth, where the conflict over Paul’s apostolic authority 
reached its culmination, we naturally find the fullest defence of the 
‘‘ministry of the new covenant,’’ the broader term under which 
Paul includes his associates below the rank of ‘‘apostles.’’ In writ- 
ing to the Romans, among whom Paul wished to come as a visiting 
brother rather than with the authority of ‘‘a father in Christ,’’ it 
is naturally his ‘‘gospel,’’ suspected in many quarters as anti- 
nomian, which comes into the foreground for explanation and de- 
fence. At a later time, when incipient Gnosticism was threatening 
the ‘‘churches of Asia,’’ Paul defends a particular element of his 
gospel, the doctrine of a risen Redeemer, which seemed to be en- 
dangered by Hellenistic theosophy. Hence he develops a Christology 
more or less tinged with Hellenistic metaphysics in the twin letters 
Ephesians-Colossians. The so-called Missionary Epistles, addressed 
to the Thessalonians, and concerning themselves with a somewhat 
undeveloped form of eschatology, have already been sufficiently 
discussed for present purposes, and need not here be further con- 
sidered. These Epistles add a Son of Man doctrine to the Servant 
doctrine Paul had received (I Cor. 15:3). We have already seen 
something of this Christological development in Paul and can fix 
approximately the date of its formulation. We are now called upon 
to place in comparison with the Pauline the Christology of certain 
portions of Mark. 

The question of Pauline influence on Mark is still hotly debated. 
The older, radical school of Volkmar and Holsten were convinced 
by the general doctrinal characteristics of the Gospel that its author 
distinctly aimed “‘to cover Paul with the shield of Jesus’’ (Hol- 
sten). A great body of recent eritics follow the more moderate 
judgment of H. J. Holtzmann that “‘here and there anecdotes ap- 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 247 


pear which as regards both form and content seem to have passed 
through the medium of the Pauline atmosphere.’’ Among those who 
hold to the Pauline bent of this evangelist appear the great ma- 
jority of German critics of the first rank, including such names as 
Pfleiderer, Johannes Weiss, Jiilicher, and Harnack, and (on the 
specific point of ‘‘The Christology of Mark’’) W. Briickner.* More 
recently still the brilliant A. Schweitzer in his Geschichte der Leben 
Jesu Forschung (1913, p. 336) has peremptorily denied that the 
Gospel of Mark shows any trace whatever of Pauline influence. 
This view has been endorsed by Wernle, and in 1923 Martin 
Werner, a privatdocent at the University of Bern, has endeavored 
to establish it by a very thorough study both philological and bib- 
lico-theological entitled Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im 
Markusevangelium. The issue of Werner’s enquiry is stated by him 
as follows: 

Whether the Mark of our second Gospel be identified with the com- 
panion of Paul or not, a comparison of his writing with the Pauline 
Epistles today generally acknowledged as authentic gives the following 
result : | 

1. Where Mark agrees with Paul the matter in question always consists 
of primitive Christian ideas universally current. 

2. Wherever we find in the Epistles distinctive, characteristic Pauline 
views which transcend this common basis, parallels are either completely 
wanting in Mark, or we find a directly contradictory standpoint. 

3. Accordingly there cannot be the slightest idea of an influence of 
Pauline theology in the Gospel of Mark. 


If the matter were a mere question of Pauline expressions directly 
taken over from the Epistles, or even of the adoption of those fine 
elements of Paulinism such as his doctrine of Life in the Spirit, or 
his careful avoidance of expressions suggesting a substitutionary 
view of the atonement (cf. the dvré of Mk. 10:45), ideas quite 
beyond the reach of the average Christian who only heard the 
rumors reported by James as the teaching of Paul (Acts 21:21), 
Werner’s sweeping judgment might be considered borne out by 
the evidence adduced. As it is we must recall the form of the state- 
ment already quoted from the Commentary to the effect that ‘‘de- 
nial (of the Paulinism of Mark) can only rest on misconception of 
the really distinctive feature.’’ The Paulinism of Mark appears in 
the selection and adaptation of material, the omissions counting 
even more than the inclusions. It is not a matter of borrowed words 
and phrases, but ‘‘is supremely manifest in this evangelist’s whole 
conception of what constitutes the apostolic message.’’ The Paulin- 


3In Protestantische Monatshefte, 1900, p. 426 ff. 


248 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


ism of our Second Gospel is that which we have designated “‘ Paulin- 
istic’? rather than Pauline, and is distinguished from the actual 
teaching of the Apostle as Paul himself distinguishes his own teach- 
ing from the doctrine of those at Corinth who under the ery ‘‘I am 
of Paul’’ showed far too little consideration for the “‘weak’’ fol- 
lower of Peter. The nature and character of the Paulinism of Mark 
require first to be considered before applying the microscopic tests 
of philology, and it should not be forgotten that the Paulinists of 
Corinth, in spite of their failure to exhibit those ‘“distinctive, char- 
acteristic Pauline views which transcend the common basis of 
primitive Christian ideas in universal currency,’’ nevertheless did 
not call themselves ‘‘of Cephas,’’ or ‘‘of Christ,’’ but ‘‘of Paul.’’ 
Without the teaching of Paul their particular type of thought would 
not have existed, though Paul himself did not approve it. — 

A further consideration should qualify our judgment of Werner’s 
results, one of which has been presented more fully in the volume 
Jesus and Paul under the cumbrous expression ‘‘the Paulinizing 
of Petrine tradition.’’ Petrine tradition nowhere comes down to us 
in its original form. All the available sources are colored more or 
less deeply by a Pauline or Paulinistic medium. This is generally 
acknowledged in the case of I Peter and the Petrine portion of 
Acts. It is still more manifestly true in the case-of the Pseudo- 
Petrine writings such as Preaching of Peter, with its Christology 
of Logos and Nomos. What shall we designate ‘‘primitive Christian 
ideas of universal currency’’? If we judge merely by Paulinized 
Petrine tradition of the post-apostolic period, the deutero-Petrine 
teaching of the Greek-speaking Church, we shall come to a point 
where it will be impossible to account for the conflicts attested in 
the great Epistles. 

The study already given to the structure and language of Mark 
brings strong reénforcement to this second consideration. The ma- 
terial of which our second evangelist avails himself is certainly not 
to be designated in any sense as Pauline. But neither can it be called 
Petrine in any primitive sense. Behind it lies, no doubt, primitive 
Aramaic material. But at how great remove? This is a problem 
almost hopeless of final solution. One thing becomes clearer with 
each successive step of criticism: the material from which the 
evangelist draws had already received much of its literary form in 
a Greek-speaking milieu. We are not carried back to the Aramaic- 
speaking fisherman of Galilee, but to some ‘‘interpreter,’’ who in 
dependence on the Greek Old Testament adapts it to the use of a 
Greek-speaking church. He uses documents written in the Greek 
language, and these documents, even while they retain traces in 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 249 


abundance of Aramaic originals, have undergone an infiltration of 
Paulinistic (if not Pauline) ideas. The influence is present even if 
indirect. Jerome’s chimera of the ‘‘authentic Hebrew’’ of the 
Apostle Matthew is no more certainly a will 0’ the wisp than the 
‘“‘original Aramaic’’ of Peter which some imagine to be recoverable 
by mere retranslation from our Gospel of Mark. What we really 
come back to is the deutero-Petrine tradition of ‘‘sayings and do- 
ings of the Lord’’ already largely translated and written down. 
And even before this recasting in literary form the teaching had 
been universalized in a manner corresponding to the Pauline mode 
of thought. It is this deutero-Petrine tradition embodied in various 
forms in the sources of our Synoptic Gospels, to which we must now 
turn. Its two main strands are Mark and,Q, and Q has been used by 
Mark. Will not a comparison of these two strands give some new 
evidence on the question of date? Shall we not perhaps find traces 
of Pauline influence of the larger sort in the material antecedent 
to Mark? The Christology affords the most available ground of 
judgment. 

In the story of Jesus’ Baptism the midrashic method is employed 
to impart to the reader a Wisdom Christology of the Q type based 
on the Servant ideal of Isaiah. In the Transfiguration story the ex- 
perience of Peter and his associates is related in similar midrash 
to convey a Christology more of the Son of Man or apocalyptic 
type. This ‘‘revelation of Peter’’ is made to embody all the values 
presented by Paul in II Cor. 3:5-6:10 as characterizing ‘‘the 
ministry (daxovia) of the new covenant’’ with its promise of im- 
mortality by ‘‘transfiguration’’ (eranoppovueba) into the ‘image’ of 
the glorified Christ. This Christology and this soteriology are made 
basic in the Gospel of Mark by the interjection of the two vision 
narratives at its two most vital points. But manifestly the doctrine 
is in neither case a creation of the evangelist. 

Mark’s own Christology is the doctrine that Jesus is a ‘‘Son of 
God.’’ But he has no incarnation doctrine by which to make this 
intelligible. His idea seems to be rather adoptionist. It is more 
simplified than simple. He draws uncomprehendingly from existing 
sources of Jewish type. In one of these, the source of the Trans- 
figuration story, Peter appears equipped by special revelation from 
God with insight into the spiritual meaning of the cross, including 
much which Paul advances in his epistles as a revelation peculiarly 
his own. The method of presentation is closely parallel to that of 
Acts 10:1-11:18, where Peter, by similar vision and voice from 
heaven is taught that distinctions of meats are ordinances of men, 
and that ‘‘in every nation he that feareth God and worketh right- 


250 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


eousness is accepted of Him.’’ Unfortunately for the champions of 
Peter we know that events really took a very different course. In 
Galatians Peter knows nothing of any such mission to the Gentiles. 
Here both he and James and all the leaders at Jerusalem appear to 
have forgotten facts which as Luke reports them would show that 
the question of ‘‘eating with men uncircumcised’’ had already been 
settled on Peter’s own initiative by official action of the whole 
Church (Acts 11: 1-18). 

Whether the account in Acts of Peter’s apostleship to the Gentiles 
be from the same source as the Transfiguration midrash, or some 
other, the method of procedure is identical. Petrine tradition is here 
‘‘Paulinized.’’ It is lifted to the level of Paul’s transcendental in- 
terpretation of the gospel, embodying the thoughts and even to 
some degree the typical expressions of the great Hellenistic apostle 
(peTapoppovpeba, oxyvn). In the midrash Peter and his associates take 
the place of Paul as recipients of the vision eclipsing that of Moses 
in the Mount of God (II Cor. 3: 5-6:10), just as in Acts 10: 1-11: 
18 Peter takes Paul’s place as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Doubt- 
less in both midrashoth, Baptism and Transfiguration, Mark has 
given as usual a mere abridgement of the original; but taking what 
we have, we may place the two extracts in comparison with the 
corresponding teaching of Paul. 

1. The story of the Baptism of Jesus, with accompanying Vision 
and Voice from Heaven (Mk. 1: 9-11), puts into the form of narra- 
tive what is quoted from Is. 42: 1-4 independently of the Hebrew 
in Mt. 12: 18-20 to show that in forbidding the healed from making 
him known Jesus fulfilled this prophecy. As the entire context of 
Mt. 11: 1-12: 45 is taken with trifling exceptions from Q it will not 
be unreasonable to maintain that this quotation also is not of Mat- 
thew’s personal finding, but is borrowed from Q. For in the con- 
text as it stands it is almost grotesquely misapplied. Moreover in its 
independence of the Greek text it agrees with other quotations from 
@* rather than with Matthew, who uses the LXX. But even if the 
quotation in Mt. 12: 18-20 be not from the Second Source it will 
still be undeniable that Mk. 1: 9-11, which is of Q material, presents 
in dramatic form the promise of Is. 42:1-4. Jesus is the Servant 
chosen of God, the Beloved whom He elected from eternity. God 


4The Q quotations are marked by great freedom, not only through render- 
ings independent of the LXX, but by free adaptation. Thus the change of Mal. 
3: 1 to ‘‘thy’’ way is deliberate. So in even more marked degree is the change 
in Mt. 12: 21 from ‘‘ The isles shall wait for his torah’’ to ‘‘ The Gentiles shall 
hope in his name’’—a very significant change, but one already effected by the 
LXX. Verse 21 is perhaps an addition due to our canonical evangelist. 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 251 


has put His Spirit upon him, that he may carry out His purpose of 
redemption for the lowly and broken people. Though inconspicuous 
and unknown he will bring true religion to its triumph in the world, 
and even the Gentiles will find the goal of their hopes in him. 
This is fundamentally the Servant Christology. It has no re- 
semblance to the Son of Man Christology of some other gospel sec- 
tions, and still less to the Son of David Christology rejected by 
Paul and Mark. If we add the Temptation Story, which seems to 
have followed it in Q, there appears to be almost a purposed dif- 
ferentiation from these other types. The Beloved is the agent of the 
revealing, redeeming Wisdom of God, who makes known His judg- 
ments to the lowly, and wins her victories in quietness among these 
her children. Only (as often in Wisdom of Solomon), the title em- 
ployed is not Servant, but Son (vids) of God. The Servant Chris- 
tology is here basic, but developed as in the Wisdom writings. 
Everywhere and consistently the Q material presents this type 
of Christology. It comes to complete and full expression in the 
great section on the Works of Christ (Mt. 11: 2-30=Lk. 7: 18-35), 
and this concludes in Mt. 11: 25-30 with the so-called ‘‘Johannine’’ 
passage. For Mt. 11: 25-30=Lk. 10:21 f. is a Hymn of Incarnate 
Wisdom, who invites the meek and lowly to receive her yoke, and 
thus to find rest for their souls.° Yet this cannot be called the Chris- 
tology of either Paul or Mark. It may be presupposed in both. In 
fact neither Paul nor Mark would be intelligible if one did not 
penetrate behind them to a ‘‘Petrine’’ Servant Christology. But 
neither in Paul or Mark does the Servant Christology lie on the 
surface. It is only referred to, as in I Cor. 15:3; Mk. 9:12b, or 
implied, as in Rom. 4: 25 ff. or Mk. 14: 49. To find it really dominant 
we must go to I Pt. 1: 18-21; 2: 21-25 and to a few fragments that 
survive under the name of Peter, or in some association with that 
name. Likewise the doctrine of an incarnation of Wisdom plays no 
part in Mark. It comes to the surface only in Paul and James. 
Whether Pauline influence is discernible in Mk. 1: 9-11 depends 
on the delicate question whether the aorist evdoxyoa, ““I elected’’ 
should be taken to imply real preéxistence, such as Paul ascribes 
to Christ (I Cor. 2: 11-16; 8:6, reading & ot, II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2: 
5 ff.), or only foreordination, as in I Pt. 1:20 and the Apocalyptic 
literature. It is indeed difficult to credit Mark with appreciation of 
the nice distinction between logical and real preéxistence. A similar 


5 See Norden, Agnostos Theos, 1913, pp. 277-308. Luke has omitted the third 
strophe (Mt. 11: 28-30) as inappropriate to the context in which he has placed 
the hymn. The invitation of Wisdom cannot well accompany the preaching of 
the Twelve. 


252 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


doctrine to that of Mark 1: 9-11 appears in Col. 1:19, where real 
preéxistence is implied. It also appears in the Nazarene Gospel, 
which makes ‘‘the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit’’ (that is, the 
source of all the ‘‘spiritual gifts’’) descend and take up its abode 
in Jesus. But here as in Mark we cannot well go beyond the teach- 
ing of I Pt. 1:20. Mark proceeds to describe the “‘powers’’ which 
now made themselves manifest in the Son of God. But the mere 
occurrence in both Paul and Mark of the titles ‘‘the Son,’’ “‘the 
Beloved’’ is not enough to prove direct dependence. Nor is the doc- 
trine present in both passages of the descent of the ‘fulness’ of the 
divine powers to abide upon the Son. The aorist eddoxyoa implies no 
more than foreordination, as in I Pt. 1: 20, not real preéxistence. 
Both Mark and the source here employed by him (the material be- 
longs to Q) might then be independent of Paul. Accordingly the 
most that can be said is that Mark here incorporates a source char- 
acterized by the Wisdom Christology, a doctrine also built upon by 
Paul. The revealing heavenly Voice declares the significance of the 
scenes which are to follow. The Wisdom of God (typified by the 
dove, whose tender murmuring note is used in Jewish poetry to 
symbolize the ‘‘mourning’’ of Jehovah over his wayward children) *® 
descends to accomplish its saving work through the ministry of 
Jesus. The work is that of the Isaian Servant, healing, redeeming, 
life-giving, and like that of the Servant it must issue in rejection 
and suffering. Yet by his knowledge (of the true God) this right- 
eous Servant “‘shall justify many.’’ He will ultimately ‘‘be exalted 
and be very high.’’ As the incarnation of that Wisdom which is 
God’s gift to Israel he will be called the Beloved Son, who fulfils 
the mission of the elect people. In meekness and gentleness, neither 
breaking the bruised reed nor quenching the spark of a smouldering 
wick, he will bring forth divine order to the world. Such is the 
Christology and soteriology which pervades the Q passages, and 
which has everywhere as its dominant idea the transfusion of the 
lower world with the spirit of heaven. Baptism, the baptism of the 
Spirit of adoption, is the rite which most congenially expresses its 
significance. It naturally emphasizes Jesus’ ministry of healing and 
repentance in Galilee, though (as we know from the Supper-frag- 
ment) it also contained its own form of the Son of David Chris- 
tology, the assurance to those who had shared in Jesus’ trials that 
they should share his triumph in the ‘‘city of David.’’ Mark finds 
but little room in his Gospel for extracts from this source, and even 

6 According to the Rabbis the Voice from heaven is like the cooing of a 


dove, that is, tender entreaty. So Jehovah ‘‘mourns’’ over the wickedness of 
Israel which compels him to desecrate his house. 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 253 


these are chosen chiefly with reference to the mere outward course 
of events. He has no use for Q Christology, the doctrine of the in- 
carnation of the Wisdom of God in the Servant. This constitutes 
his widest divergence from Paul. 

2. It is no easy matter to decide whether we should ascribe the 
Revelation of Peter and his associates at the Mount of Transfigura- 
tion which prefaces the second part of Mark, explaining the ‘‘spir- 
itual’’ significance of the Passion and Resurrection, to the same 
source as the Vision at the Baptism, or to some other. In the latter 
case it would also be difficult to define the relation in which one 
source would stand to the other. In favor of identity of source is 
the close resemblance of method. But mutual interdependence would 
explain this equally well. Against identity is the improbability that 
the same source should have two dénouements, or that if by any 
possibility it did, these two should not exactly agree. In the Trans- 
figuration vision the Voice from heaven agrees in representing Jesus 
as the Son, the Beloved (in Luke “‘the Elect’’) ; but its conception 
of the saving work of this Son has little resemblance to the Incarna- 
tion doctrine of Q. The Transfiguration vision teaches a messiah- 
ship by apotheosis. It is nearer to the Son of Man than to the 
Servant Christology. 

To realize the true extent of difference we must consider they pur- 
pose for which the second midrash is introduced. Jesus has just re- 
vealed himself to Peter and his associates at Caesarea as the suffer- 
ing and glorified Son of Man. Peter has been rebuked for advancing 
a doctrine of Christhood ‘‘according to the things of men.’’ He and 
they are now to be taught the truth on divine authority. Moses and 
Klias, ‘‘the men that were taken up, that have not tasted death 
from their birth’” appear in the glorified bodies of the denizens of 
Paradise ‘“‘typifying incorruption’’ (mpoouwaldouevor tHv apGapciar). 
Such is the doctrine of the Rabbis. ‘‘If a min (heretic) denies the 
(bodily) resurrection take the prophet Elias as witness,’’® says 
Yalkut Shime‘oni on Ps. 60:9. Enoch is the Gentile Elijah; for 
Ben-Sirach, who in Eeclus. 48:10 makes it the function of Elijah 
‘‘to turn the heart.of the Father (God) to the son (Israel), and to 
restore the tribes of Israel’’ says in 44:16 that ‘‘ Enoch was trans- 
lated in order that he might be an example of (that is, commending) 
repentance to all generations.’’ Hence in many of the Talmudic 

7So in Apocalypse (II Esdr. 6: 26). 

8 That is, as an example. So in the Dialogue of Minucius Felix, the heathen 
objects to the doctrine of a resurrection body, ‘‘In all past centuries none has 


ever returned as an example.’’ Paul takes the glorified body of Christ as an 
‘fexample.’’ Christ is the ‘‘ Firstfruits’’ dwapx7% of the resurrection. 


254 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


and later forms of the Paradise legend Enoch and Elijah are the 
‘“witnesses of incorruption,’’ or ‘‘ witnesses of Messiah.’’ 

For the Messiah also has this function of bringing immortality, 
and himself, of course, takes the leading part. Says the Jew quoted 
by Celsus in Origen’s well-known work (II, lxxvii) : ‘‘We do indeed 
hope that there will be a bodily resurrection, and that we shall 
enjoy an eternal life; and the example and archetype (zapdderypa xat 
apxnyérns) of this will be He who is sent to us, who will thus prove 
that it is not impossible for God to raise up men with their bodies.”’ 
It is true, as Strack points out,® that the Talmud gives no early 
attestation for the promise of God to Moses: ‘‘Because thou didst 
offer thy life for Israel in this world (Ex. 32:32) so shall it be 
again in the world to come. When I send Elias to my people thou 
shalt appear with him.’’ Only in early Christian literature does 
Moses appear together with Elias in the work of ‘‘restoring the 
tribes’’ preliminary to the final judgment (Rev. 11: 3-138). Never- 
theless the ‘‘ignorant’’ word of Peter in the vision, offering to 
build ‘‘tabernacles’’ (cxnvds) for the glorified ones, shows clearly 
that the lesson has to do with the ‘‘bodily resurrection’’; for in Hel- 
lenistic religious literature oxyvy, oxjvos, and oxyvwpa are almost tech- 
nical terms for the ‘‘tenement of clay’’ (II Cor. 5:1; IT Pt. 1:14; 
Jn. 1:14). As Origen already saw, this suggestion of Peter’s in 
Mk. 9: 5 to prepare “‘tabernacles’’ for the glorified is the equivalent 
of his proposal that Jesus reject the cross in the preceding story 
(8:33), and may thus be called a ‘‘suggestion of Satan.’’ Peter’s 
word of ignorance stands over against.the vision and heavenly Voice 
that the reader may be taught the wrong and the right of the gospel. 
Not in earthly tabernacles of corruptible flesh is the deliverance of 
the Christ to be accomplished, but in bodies of incorruptible glory, 
our ‘‘house which is from heaven.’’ And the way to this deliverance 
from the powers of darkness and death is obedience to him. The 
Voice from heaven proclaims: ‘‘ This is my Son, the Elect ;*° hearken 
ye to him.’’ 

A study of primitive Christian and pre-christian apocalypse en- 
ables us to say certainly what are the ingredients of this midrash. 
Moses, who in contemporary apocalypse is ‘‘taken up’’ as Elijah 
had been (the Assumption of Moses), appears together with Elias 

9 Strack, Comm. on Matt. 1923, p. 756. Volz, Jiid. Eschatologie, p. 191, had 
mistakenly ascribed the saying to Johanan ben Zacchai (50-100 a.p.). It belongs 
to the midrash on Deuteronomy (ca. 900 A.D.). 

10 The variation between Mk. 9: 7, 6 ’Ayamrnrés, and Lk. 9: 35, 6 éxdedheypévos, 


is most reasonably explained on the theory of assimilation in the former case 
to Mk. 1: 11. 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 295 


as one of the “‘two witnesses who stand in the presence of Lord of 
the whole earth’’ (Rev. 11:3 f.; cf. Zech. 4:3, 11, 14), ready to 
fulfil his part together with Elias so soon as the Christ also, ‘‘he 
who was to be sent,’’ shall also have been ‘‘taken up.’’ But Peter 
and his associates are not yet ready. They think of the kingdom, and 
the work of the Son of Man ‘‘according to the things of men.’’ 
Hence the proposal of Peter’s ‘‘ignorance’’ (ver. 6). Hence also 
the Voice, which tells the true mission of the chosen Son. The Christ 
of God is to become through his death and exaltation a heavenly 
Redeemer. This utterance the disciples understood not at the time. 
They kept the revelation to themselves, says the evangelist (ver. 
10), “questioning among themselves what the rising again from the 
dead should mean.”’ | 

A series of attempts to give the apostleship and message of Peter 
over against those of Paul help us to determine where to place this 
‘‘revelation.’’ In Mt. 16: 17-19 our first evangelist appends to the 
Markan account of Peter’s Confession of Jesus as the ‘‘ Christ, the 
Son of the living God,’’ a declaration on Jesus’ part that this per- 
ception came ‘‘not from flesh and blood’’ (cf. Gal. 1:16), but was 
a revelation from the ‘‘Father in heaven.’’ As such it constitutes 
Peter the first founder of the resurrection faith, and gives him 
authority to define for all what is, or is not, obligatory. He is to 
hold “‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’’ This is certainly one 
of the earliest of the attempts to define the ‘‘revelation of Peter,”’ 
though certainly later than Paul’s statement of his own apostleship 
and authority ‘‘not from flesh and blood’’ but by revelation from 
God of his glorified Son. 

A second statement of the message of Peter, particularly directed 
against the ‘‘heretics who deny the bodily resurrection,’’ takes the 
revelation of Peter and his associates “‘in the holy mount’’ much 
as Yalkut Shime‘oni advises that ‘‘the prophet Elias’’ should be 
taken. IT Pt. 1: 16-18 (140-150?) applies the Transfiguration story 
in the name of Peter, much as in Mark, though with a conflation of 
the Voice at the Baptism with the Voice of this occasion. ‘‘The 
Elders’’ quoted by Irenaeus (from Papias) in his Paradise doctrine 
(Haer.V.v.1) have the same teaching that the men who were trans- 
lated to Paradise ‘‘remain there until the end of all things as arche- 
types of incorruption’’ (zpooimaLdpevon tiv &pOapciav). 

A third form of this famous ‘‘revelation’’ takes the very name, 
ealling itself the Apocalypse or Revelation of Peter, and speaking 
in the name of Peter and his associates. This is a writing of about 
the same period as Second Peter, having in view the same deniers 
of the (bodily) resurrection (cf. Polyearp ad Phil. vii.), and aim- 


256 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


ing to enhance the effect of moral teaching by greater emphasis on 
the rewards and penalties of the world to come. Once more the de- 
scription of the glorified denizens of Paradise is given, with great 
heightening and elaboration. The disciples are led by Jesus after 
prayer into the holy mount, and there receive the vision. It takes 
place, however, after the resurrection, thus avoiding the difficulty 
met in Mk. 9:9 f. by the requirement that the revelation shall be 
kept a secret until after the Son of Man be risen again from the 
dead.** 

It is possible thus to trace something both of the pre-christian 
ingredients of the Transfiguration story, and of its development in 
the early Church. Clearly it is apocalyptic in type, aiming to set 
forth a Son of Man Christology, and (if we may judge from the 
quotation of Dt. 18:15 in the heavenly Voice) embodying a soteri- 
ology based on the conception of the Prophet, the Second Moses. 
Obedience to him is the pathway of salvation and eternal life. 
Verbally we have traces of the Servant Christology. The Voice pro- 
claims Jesus ‘‘the Beloved Son’’ (in Luke ‘‘the Elect’’), and the 
whole scene seems to be almost a replica of the Vision at the Bap- 
tism. But surely the conception of salvation is quite different, 
whether as regards method or result. As a preface to the Passion 
and Resurrection gospel this midrash serves very well the purpose 
of Mark. It contrasts the Son of David ideal with that of the Son 
of Man, making the doctrine of the cross central and indispensable. 
But there is no hint of the Servant doctrine, and none whatever of 
the Wisdom Christology. 

Fortunately our present purpose does not require a final answer 
to the question of the relation of the Transfiguration midrash to 
that of the Baptism. If either one shows dependence on Paul then 
both it and a fortiori the Gospel of Mark which incorporates it are 
later. In fact they are so considerably later than Paul as to leave 
room for the grafting upon the type of thought really characteristic 
of Peter of certain highly distinctive features of Pauline doctrine. 
In the case of the midrash of the Baptism we have acknowledged 
inability to point to anything characteristic of Paul, though Paul 
also embodies similar ideas in Col. 1:19 and elsewhere. In the case 
of the Transfiguration midrash there is so marked an effort to place 
the apostleship and gospel of Peter on a level with that of Paul, as 
expressed in his comparison of the ‘‘ministry of the new covenant’’ 
with that of Moses in IT Cor. 3: 6-6: 10, that it seems impossible to 
doubt the dependence of the Markan source. For in the definition of 


11 Such ‘hiding of the mystery’ is characteristic of apocalypse. Without it 
the reader would ask: ‘‘ Why were we not sooner informed of this?’’ 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 257 


his apostleship ‘‘not from man’’ we have to do with something per- 
sonally distinctive of Paul. He does indeed place the apostleship of 
Peter on a level with his own as a revelation of the glorified Christ 
by God ‘‘in’’ Peter corresponding to his own (Gal. 2:8). But it 
may well be doubted if any besides Paul took quite so lofty a view 
of ‘‘the ministry.’’ In particular his personal experience of a con- 
tinuous “‘transfiguration,’’ renewing the inward man day by day 
in spite of the decay of the ‘‘outward man,’’ a transfiguration by 
the vision of ‘‘the ight of the knowledge of the glory of God in the 
face of Jesus Christ’’ conveying not only forgiveness and reconcilia- 
tion but assurance of immortality, is so inimitably and character- 
istically Pauline (cf. Rom. 8:11, 29f., 38 f.) and so unmistakably 
the fruit of his personal religious experience that its originality 
must forever stand unquestioned. 

The midrash, like the Pauline defense of the ‘‘ministry,’’ is built 
on the story of Moses “‘going up to God’’ at Horeb. As Moses takes 
with him Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, so Jesus takes with him Peter 
and James and John, doubtless because these three who shared the 
martyrdom of Jesus, (Mk. 10:39; Jn. 21:19) and are consequently 
to share his glory (Rom. 8:17; II Tim. 2:11 f.) are his most ap- 
propriate companions in this revelation of it. As in Ex. 24:16 there 
is a preparatory “‘six days’’ (Mk. 9:2). After this Jesus, ascending 
with his three companions into the “‘high mountain apart,’’ is 
covered by the cloud which hides the divine ‘‘glory’’ (Ex. 24:15- 
18; Mk. 9:6). Here the Voice from heaven proclaims him the Elect 
(or Beloved) Son, and the world, through the attendant witnesses, 
is admonished to ‘‘hearken to him,’’ as in Dt. 18:15 the people are 
admonished to hearken to “‘the prophet like unto Moses.’’ 

Thus far we have only an interpretation by vision and Voice 
from heaven of the mission of Jesus in the character of glorified 
Son of Man and second Moses. Such an interpretation might well be 
expected in certain circles of Jewish Christianity. These, however, 
would hardly be the same circles to which he had previously been 
set forth, by equally divine authority, with John the Baptist as 
witness, in the character of the incarnate Wisdom of God, fulfilling 
the career of the suffering Servant. This impression of difference is 
strenethened by certain further traits which are vital to the narra- 
tive in the connection given it by Mark, if not from its origin. They 
are precisely the traits which make it a vision of “‘transfiguration,’’ 
and a ‘‘revelation to Peter’’ not only of the glorified Son of God, 
but of the ‘‘ignorance’’ of those who think of the redemption as con- 
cerned with earthly ‘‘tabernacles.’’ The revelation aims to teach 
that the followers of the Son become sharers of the heavenly Para- 


258 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


dise where dwell already in ‘‘glorified’’ bodies the men who were 
taken up, Moses and Elias. For their translation was for this pur- 
pose that they should be ‘‘archetypes of incorruption’’ dwelling in 
Paradise till the last times, in the presence of the Lord of the whole 
earth. These traits, dealing with ‘‘what the rising from the dead 
means’’ (Mk. 9:10), are those which interest Mark and subsequent 
employers of the midrash. Now these traits have nothing to do with 
the story of Moses’ ascent to God to obtain forgiveness for the 
many, or his bringing down of the Torah, both of which are also 
played upon by Paul. They depend entirely upon another factor, 
made especially prominent in II Cor. 3:12-6:10, perhaps because 
the question “‘How are the dead raised, and with what manner of 
body do they come?’’ had been a vital issue at Corinth (I Cor. 15: 
35 ff.). This factor is the Pauline mystical doctrine of ‘‘transfigura- 
tion’’ by the vision of God in Christ. 

Immortality through the vision of God (@cdrns da beds) is of course 
a commonplace of the mystery religions of Paul’s time, and due 
allowance must be made in the interpretation of II Cor. 3: 18-4: 6 
for the fact that here more than anywhere else in Paul the phrase- 
ology of mystery-religion is heaped up. ‘‘Transfiguration’’ (merapdp- 
dwors), reflection ‘‘as in a mirror’’ of the image of the divinity, 
‘‘enlightenment’’ (¢dwricpds), knowledge (yvwors) of the divine glory 
—all these expressions warn us that Hellenistic mysticism has had 
a share in the development of these conceptions. Nevertheless it is 
a pre-christian Jew, albeit a Hellenist and one of the fathers of 
Gnosticism, Philo of Alexandria, who gives us the key to Paul’s 
meaning. At the close of his Life of Moses (II. 89, 288) Philo 
relates how Moses was gradually prepared for immortality by a 
kind of transfiguration of his mortal body. Through his immediate 
intercourse with God his whole physical nature, which previously 
had been of the dual or composite nature of ordinary human 
bodies, partly flesh and partly spirit (cGpa xai yxy) and thus sub- 
ject to corruption, became changed into the substance of monads, a 
mind-substance like the sun’s radiance (cis voty #Awedeorarov). This 
was accomplished by his vision of God in preparation for immor- 
tality (meraxAnbels arabavariler Oar). 

This conception of transfiguration by the indwelling of the Spirit 
of Christ is an essential factor in Paul’s doctrine of resurrection, 
and gives his answer to the debated question, ‘‘With what manner 
of body do they come?’’ In Rom. 8:10f. the Spirit of life in 
Christ Jesus has this double function, physical as well as ethical. 
Those who walk after it fulfil the ordinance of the Law by virtue 
of a new moral power. They are also transfigured in their mortal 


INDIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 259 


bodies by the indwelling of ‘‘the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus 
from the dead,’’ so that we know that ‘‘if we suffer with him we 
shall also be glorified with him’’ (17). The carrying out of this 
‘“transfiguration’’ by the renewing of the mind in the likeness of 
the mind of Christ gives experience of the good and acceptable and 
perfect intention of the Creator (Rom. 12:2). For God created us 
for this very thing, even immortality in his own likeness (II Cor. 
5:5; cf. Wisd. 2:23). Our outward bodies therefore may decay, 
but our inward man is continually renewed, the treasure breaking 
forth from the earthen vessel (II Cor. 4:7 ff.). Thus we ‘‘put on 
the new man, which is after God, created in righteousness and _holi- 
ness of truth’’ (Eph. 4: 24). Thus the present body of our humilia- 
tion is “‘fashioned anew, conformed to Christ’s body of glory, ac- 
cording to the miraculous working of God’’ (Phil. 3:21). 

Paul’s doctrine of this corruptible putting on incorruption, and 
this mortal putting on immortality (I Cor. 15: 50-54) is therefore 
a very definite and vital part of his message, given to him together 
with his apostleship to the Gentiles when it pleased God to reveal 
His Son in him. It is a distinct doctrine of ‘‘transfiguration,’’ with- 
out which this flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God. 
In II Cor. 5:1 ff. it is expressed by comparison of the mortal body 
to a ‘‘tabernacle’’ (oxjvos) such as the ark of God occupied in the 
wilderness until the ‘‘house’’ was built for it in Jerusalem. In like 
manner we in the consummation are to be “‘clothed upon with our 
‘house’ (oixia) to be given us from heaven’’ that mortality may be 
swallowed up of life. Peter’s apostleship could not be reckoned 
equal to Paul’s unless it contained an equivalent revelation of the 
Son by the Father. For this reason we find the Transfiguration 
midrash appended after Peter’s Confession in Mk. 9:2 ff., just as 
Mt. 16:17-19 appends an utterance of Christ giving him apostolic 
authority because of his ‘‘revelation.’’ In the Transfiguration story 
the ethical aspect of the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit is neglected. 
Nothing appears of the doctrine of the new covenant written not 
on tables of stone but hearts of flesh, which Paul draws from Jer. 
31:31 ff., unless we so reckon the admonition of the heavenly Voice 
to obedience to the Prophet. Attention is concentrated on the 
‘‘transfiguration’’ undergone by Jesus as “‘example and archetype 
of the bodily resurrection,’’? and the ignorance of Peter and his 
associates until enlightened by the revelation, in thinking the glori- 
fied ones could be induced to exchange their heavenly condition for 
earthly ‘‘tabernacles.’’ 

In the earlier form (II Cor. 3:1-6:10) Paul’s defense of ‘‘the 
ministry’’ includes a full statement of his doctrine of the Spirit. 


260 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


As Moses went up to God to obtain forgiveness and mediate a 
covenant of law, a ‘‘ministration of death, written and engraven 
on stones’’ (a handwriting of ordinances which was against us, 
since the condition of God’s return was obedience to every word of 
the commandment), so Jesus had ascended ‘‘far above all the 
heavens,’’ obtaining not only forgiveness, in spite of all protest of 
the angels (Rom. 8: 33-39), but the Spirit of adoption, sent down 
not only to sanctify, but to make men immortal as sons of God. 
This immortality is not a mere fading glory, such as illuminated 
for a time the face of Moses when he came down from seeing God 
on the holy Mount, but fills with assurance of immortality those 
who have received the illumination (¢wricpds) of the knowledge of 
the glory of God by vision of the face of the glorified Christ. How- 
ever outwardly worn with suffering they are continually renewed 
in the inward man, being “‘transfigured into the image’’ of the 
glorified Christ, and are thus continually of good courage, willing 
rather to be absent from the body that they may be present with 
the Lord. They henceforth know no ‘‘Christ after the flesh’’ (II 
Cor. 5:16; cf. Mk. 8:33; 9:6), but as ambassadors of God proclaim 
the message of the Reconciliation, God’s forgiveness of sin for the 
sake of Christ who gave himself ‘‘for the many,’’ entreating men 
everywhere to be reconciled to God. In all their affliction and dis- 
tress, accordingly, they as ‘‘ministers of God’’ are living examples 
of their gospel of peace and life. As dying, behold they live, as 
sorrowful they are always rejoicing, as poor they make many rich, 
as having nothing they are possessors of all things. 

Such is Paul’s great defence of the ‘‘apostleship.’’ We need to 
know it as a whole to apprehend its greatness and originality. We 
do not need to find every element in it reflected in the midrash of 
the revelation of the glorified Christ to Peter, to perceive that the 
midrash has incorporated something of the teaching of Paul. 


CHAPTER XIX 
PAULINE INFLUENCE (b) DIRECT 


In the preceding chapter we have traced the influence of Paul’s 
teaching, whether orally or by his writings, in certain sources in- 
corporated by Mark. With or without the evangelist’s appreciation 
of the fact one at least of the sources he employs takes up in a form 
adapted to Jewish comprehension ideas set forth by Paul in II Cor. 
3-6 in defense of the ‘‘ministry of the, new covenant.’’ Peter’s 
apostleship and gospel are thus pictured as containing the same 
elements as Paul’s, sanctioned by the same superhuman authority. 
The representation of Mark fails to agree with the facts of Peter’s 
experience as known from the Pauline Epistles. Peter’s real en- 
lightenment came after the experience of Gethsemane and Calvary. 
The gnosis of Peter, James, and John, says an unknown gospel 
quoted by Clement of Alexandria, was given them by the Lord 
‘‘after the resurrection.’’ 

We have now to ask whether the evangelist himself shows effects 
from Pauline teaching as well as his sources. It cannot be expected 
to appear through verbal extracts, for the nature of the subject 
and the practice of the age are both opposed. Even Acts, in the 
portion derived more or less directly from a close companion of 
Paul during the decade of the great Epistles, shows no.acquaintance 
with the Epistles. The Fourth Gospel itself, written from the head- 
quarters of Paulinism a half-century after the appearance of these 
same Epistles, shows acquaintance with them only by resemblance 
of teaching; a resemblance of spirit, not of the letter. The age of 
citation from Paul scarcely begins before Irenaeus. Justin Martyr, 
however embued with Pauline (or quasi-Pauline) ideas, has scarcely 
a trace in all his writings of verbal employment of the Pauline 
Epistles. However, certain ideas are recognizable as characteris- 
tically Pauline, even in un-Pauline dress; and the cumulative evi- 
dence of a succession of such ideas soon becomes convincing, even 
where no single echo shows verbal resemblance. We cannot expect 
verbal resemblances in Mark; but Pauline influence may be ‘trace- 
able none the less. Such evidence in Mark will be of service not 
merely to reénforce the inferences to be drawn from sources em- 
bodied, making it still more probable that the Gospel originates at 
a date considerably later than the Epistles, but will have interpreta- 


262 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


tive value also. It will serve to determine the nature of the Gospel’s 
environment, the conditions of requirement and resource which 
called it forth. 

In our study of the composition of the Gospel of Mark as a whole 
we have found it instructive to compare the proportion of space 
and interest given to teaching as against narrative material with 
the proportion for the same elements in Matthew and Luke. We 
inferred from this comparison that Mark’s concentration upon the 
story of Jesus’ career, in particular the reduction of all soterio- 
logical teaching to the doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection, can- 
not be explained without reference to Paul. As stated in the Com- 
mentary (p. xxviii), ‘‘The Paulinism of Mark is supremely mani- 
fest in this evangelist’s whole conception of what constitutes the 
apostolic message.’’ The substance of the story could be derived 
\from no other ultimate eye-witness than Peter. But Peter scarcely 
appears in this Gospel except to receive rebuke, and the selection of 
material is so made as to bring out belief in Jesus as “‘the Son of 
God’’ in a sense quite characteristic of Paul. It presents a hope of 
redemption in which the moral teaching of Jesus is only given 
incidentally ; whereas salvation is explicitly declared to be not a 
matter of obedience to Scripture commandments, but of the dedica- 
tion of all, wealth and life, to the cause of the Kingdom, and of fol- 
lowing Jesus even to martyrdom. This is quite in keeping with First 
Peter. But for this very reason First Peter has been called ‘‘ Deu- 
tero-Pauline.’’ The contrast of Matthew’s emended form of the 
story of the Rich Enquirer (Mk. 10:17-31=Mt. 19: 16-30) with 
the Markan original is highly instructive on this point. Matthew 
thinks of salvation as secured by obedience to the new Torah of 
Jesus. Mark in a more Pauline way, as suffering and being glorified 
together with him (cf. Rom. 8:17). If First Peter presents a 
strongly Paulinized version of the teaching of Peter, is this not at 
least in some degree true of the doctrinal content of Mark? 

1. We have found in considering the make-up of such few dis- 
courses as are actually contained in this Gospel, that they appear 
to centre upon points of doctrine or apologetic particularly char- 
acteristic of Paul. The most considerable of these is the Eschato- 
logical Discourse, which we found to have as its main burden the 
‘“Be not agitated’’ of Paul’s advice to the Thessalonians, and to be 
largely founded on the Son of Man doctrine of the Thessalonian 
Little Apocalypse. A curiously specific point of coincidence is the 
doctrine of the “‘cutting short’’ of the days of the Son of Man to 
spare the elect (Mk. 13:20). In Rom. 9: 27 f. Paul bases it on Is. 
10: 22 f. LXX. 


DIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 263 


2. A similar account could be given of the next largest discourse 
of Mark, made up from a selection of Jesus’ Parables of the King- 
dom (4: 1-34). Here the motive was again largely apocalyptic and 
apologetic, but the evangelist’s chief interest was to show that Jesus 
adopted the parabolic method in order to convey ‘‘the mystery of 
the kingdom of God’’ to the little group of the elect constituting 
his real (spiritual) kindred, while ‘‘outsiders’’ should understand 
nothing. This singular apologetic is undeniably related to that of 
Paul in Rom. 9-11. For the purpose of developing it Mark utilizes 
a logion about the “‘hiding of the mystery’’ which also plays a 
great part in the thought of Paul, though traceable in a form ante- 
cedent to both in the Wisdom literature (I Cor. 1:18-3:2; Mt. 11: 
25-30=Lk. 10: 21 f.). So singular a combination of Old Testament 
quotation with current logia in the interest of a particular form of 
anti-Jewish apologetic is difficult to account for unless we suppose 
the evangelist to have been familiar with the parallel argument of 
Paul, which employs the same quotations in the same interest.* 

3. The discourse on Receiving versus Stumbling (9: 30-50), next 
in dimensions, was found to bear a similar relation to Paul’s ex- 
hortation to the church leaders at Rome (Rom. 14: 1-15:13). It is 
all the more difficult to account for the composition of this discourse 
without influence from Paul because of the extraordinary artifi- 
ciality of the connection. The basis, as we found, was a teaching of 
Jesus urging Renunciation for the Gospel’s Sake. Resting on the 
mere verbal attachment ‘‘Causing to stumble’’ Mark has expanded 
this theme into a discourse on Receiving versus Stumbling, contrary 
. to the clear meaning and connection of the context. Without the 
technical use of the ideas ‘‘receiving’’ and ‘‘stumbling’’ in Rom. 
14:1 ff. this is almost inexplicable. 

4. The discourse on Distinctions of Meats (7: 1-23), founded on 
the logion about Inward Purity, was also developed along lines 
justifying a Paulinistic application. Jesus, according to Mark, had 
swept away all distinctions of meats by this saying, and thereafter 
had extended his mission of mercy to Gentiles also. This goes quite 
beyond Paul’s teaching (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 15:8); but not beyond 
what Paul was commonly understood to teach (I Cor. 10: 23 ff.; 
Rom. 14:8; Acts 21: 21). It is not the Epistles themselves but com- 


1The attempt of Werner (op. cit. pp. 184-197) to discount this evidence on 
the ground that Mark makes use of the doctrine in a more harshly anti-Jewish 
way than Paul would only have weight if the contention were for direct literary 
dependence. The statement (p. 196) that Mark presents no prospect (as in Rom. 
9-11) of the ultimate conversion of Israel may be questioned, See Commentary 
on Mk. 9: 14-29. 


264 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


mon report of Paul’s teaching which we must expect to find re- 
flected in this Gospel. Once more Mark’s proof-text (Is. 29:13) is 
the same which Paul had employed with reference to the same sub- 
ject in Col. 2:22. It has even been maintained that there is here a 
literary relation, because of the peculiar rendering of the Hebrew.’ 

If such is the case it would be inverting the canons of criticism to 
maintain that Paul was here the borrower. One may suppose that 
both employ a common source, or that the evangelist gets his proof- 
text from Paul. It is perhaps the part of good judgment not to in- 
sist too strongly on the literary nature of the interdependence. The 
author of the doctrine, however, can hardly be other than Paul. 

5. Finally the Question of Christ, appended by Mark in 12: 35- 
37 to the triple series of questions of Pharisee, Sadducee, and Scribe, 
gives a Christology distinctly Pauline (cf. Rom. 1:3 f.) in striking 
contrast to the Son of David Christology represented in other gos- 
pel material. Here too the proof-text (Ps. 110:1) is repeatedly 
employed by Paul (Rom. 8:34; I Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 
3:1), though also found in an early ‘Petrine’ source (Acts 2:34). 
In Rom. 1:3 f. it is set in explicit contrast with the Son of David 
Christology. Cf. Mk. 12: 35-37. 

Thus with one possible exception the discourses of Mark appear 
to be developed with a Pauline application, on the basis of proof- 
texts employed in similar application by Paul. The exception is the 
Parable (or allegory) of the Rejection of the Son (Mk. 12: 1-12), 
which should perhaps not be counted as a ‘‘discourse.’’ In this case 
we seem to have the elaboration of a theme supplied by Q, with em- 
ployment of the Passover Psalm (Ps. 118:22 f.) previously em- 
ployed in 11:9 f. Paul in Rom. 9:33 and Eph. 2: 20 uses the Isaian 
equivalent (the original form?), Is. 28:16. The use of Ps. 118: 22 f. 
might rather be called Petrine, for it is thus applied in Peter’s 
speech in Acts 4:11 (with closer approximation to the Hebrew). 
Mark is probably using here the Special Source of Luke, which was 
clearly Petrine. In I Pt. 2:6-8 the two proof-texts are placed in 
conjunction, one following the other. First Peter, as we know, is a 
Paulo-Petrine writing. 

To this evidence for direct influence from Paul based on the 
* structure and composition of the Gospel we have now to add the 
few instances in which it may be supposed that Mark draws directly 
upon some Pauline, or post-Pauline writing, such as the Vision and 
Voice from heaven at Jesus’ Baptism in comparison with Col. 1:19 
or the Pauline (?) phraseology of the definition of ‘‘the Gospel of 
6 fers Ailaee a thal pa 8 


2 On this see below, p. 266. 


DIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 265 


1. The Vision and Voice of Mk. 1:9-11 have already been dis- 
cussed in our study of Markan and Pauline Christology.’ The pas- 
sage being derived from Q, the question really concerns the Second 
Source primarily, and can hardly be decided apart from a survey 
of all the Christological passages of Q. It does not appear, however, 
that Mk. 1: 9-11 is more Pauline than I Pt. 1:20, or involves any- 
thing more than eternal foreordination. The title ‘‘the Beloved,’’ 
and the conception of adoption by indwelling of the Spirit, with 
the attendant ‘‘gifts’’ is not distinctively Pauline. Paul, Mark, and 
the Q source have it by common inheritance. 

2. Comparison of the definition of the gospel preached by Jesus 
in Mk. 1:15 with the Q form (Mt. 10: 7=Lk. 9:2; 10:11) makes 
conspicuous the addition of the clauses ‘‘the time is fulfilled’’ and 
‘“‘believe in the gospel.’’ These have sometimes been characterized 
as “‘Pauline.’’ But the inference is far from cogent. No emphasis 
should be laid upon it. In particular the unique construction of 
mortevev With év (‘‘believe in’’) is indicative of a Semitic source. 

3. Greater weight as indicative of post-Pauline origin might 
perhaps be attached to the theory enunciated in Mk. 1:34; 3:11, 
of recognition of Jesus as the Christ by the demons.* This theory 
is accepted by Luke, but receives no endorsement from Matthew 
beyond transcription of the basic story of the Gerasene Demoniac 
(Mk. 5: 7=Mt. 8: 29). In all other cases Matthew avoids repeating 
the statement of Mark that the demons recognized Jesus as ‘‘Son 
of the Most High God.’’ The belief might rest upon the incident 
related by an eye-witness in Acts 16:16. But the incident, historical 
though it be, is not a necessary condition of the belief. It makes it 
somewhat more probable that the Gospel was written at a later 
time. But there is again nothing cogent about the proof. In Acts 
16:17 the Pythoness calls the missionaries ‘‘servants of the Most 
High God’’ (dotA0x rod iyicrov Geot), doubtless because she knows 
something of the sect of Jewish propagandists known to us through 
inscriptions extending from the Fayoum to Bithynia,° who used 
this title. The demon of Mk. 5:7 uses the same, contributing (like 
the heathen centurion of 15:39) to Gentile apprehension of how 
(to the evangelist’s mind) the title ‘Son of God’ should be taken. 
But the coincidence even in this unusual title is not convincing as 
evidence of any direct relation between the two narratives, whether 
oral or literary. 

8 See above, p. 250, and cf. Bacon, ‘‘The Aorist evddxyoa in Mk, 1: 11.”’ 
J.B.L. XVI, 136-142. 

.4On this see Bacon in Z.N.W. VI (1905), pp. 153-158, ‘‘ The Markan Theory 
of Demonic Recognition of the Christ.’’ 

5 See Schiirer, Die Hypsistarier. 


266 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


4, ‘‘The mystery of the kingdom of God’’ given to the elect, but 
‘“hidden’’ from outsiders (Mk. 4:11), is properly termed in the 
Commentary (p. 48) a ‘‘Pauline’’ expression. The term belongs to 
Hellenistic religion, and to the ‘mystery’ cults, signifying the reve- 
lation conveyed to the adept. It is common in Paul (Rom. 11: 25; 
16: 253.0 Cors2e7 i4e Ly 1382214721 ol pho as oo ee 
52 322062195" Coll L726 £3) 232304235 Li hess ee wae 
3:9, 16)) but unknown to the Gospels outside this passage. Yet the 
idea of the ‘‘hiding of the mystery’’ (of the divine revelation), the 
real point of resemblance, belongs rather to the Hellenistic Wisdom 
literature than specifically to Paul. Particularly the elaboration of 
it in I Cor. 1: 18-3: 2, in which critics as eminent as Pfleiderer and 
Harnack have suspected a direct literary relation with the Q paral- 
lel Mt. 11: 25-27=Lk. 10:21 f., is probably due to nothing more 
than common dependence on the same widespread idea. Theodo- 
tion’s translation of Is. 24:16 (76 puvorypiov pov émot Kai Tots épois), 
which coincides with the rabbinie (Sanhedrin 94:1, ‘‘A bath qol 
resounded, saying ‘My secret is mine, my secret is mine’ ’’), proves 
its currency in Jewish circles. Only in the sense that Mark probably 
is led to make the application here considered through diffused 
Pauline influence can even this passage on the ‘hiding of the mys- 
tery of the kingdom of God’ be called ‘‘ Pauline.’’. 

5. According to Professor Torrey Mk. 7:6 f. by the form in 
which it quotes Is. 29:13 (dddcxovres didacKxarias évrddApata dvOpwrov) 
shows direct literary relation with Col. 2:22, where the same re- 
dundant (conflate?) form is employed (évrdéApara Kai didacKkadias Tov 
avOporwv). The LXX have diddcxovres evtdApata dvOpirwv kat didacKkadias. 
The last two words of the Septuagint text are superfluous, perhaps 
added from the margin as an alternate rendering of the Hebrew 
mitzwah. The Hebrew has simply “‘ Their fear of me is a command- 
ment of men which has been taught them.’’ Both Paul and Mark 
follow LXX. If it can be shown that coincidence in following the 
LXX proves literary interrelation we surely have it here. In that 
case Mark depends directly on Paul, filling out the bare allusion of 
Col. 2: 22 to the full dimensions of the original, just as Lk. 3: 4 ff. 
fills out Mk. 1:1 from Is. 40:3 ff., or as Mark himself fills out the 
bare allusion of Rom. 11: 8 to Is. 6:9 f. in Mk. 4: 12. As above stated 
(p. 264) we think it more reasonable not to insist upon direct liter- 
ary interrelation. Mark (or the Markan source) is following the 
great Isaian chapter on the enlightenment of the lowly (Is. 29: 9-24) 
throughout this section of his Gospel. Its ideas dominate from 7:1 . 
to 8:30. They were a commonplace of anti-Jewish polemic in 
Nazarene circles in the fourth century. They may have been so in 


DIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 267 


the time of Paul. In view of Mark’s habitual use of the LXX we 
must remain unconvinced of direct literary relationship, in spite of 
the fact that direct interrelation would probably demonstrate our 
thesis of the post-Pauline origin of Mark. 

6. In the Transfiguration midrash of Mk. 9: 2-10 we have already 
called attention to the incorporation of Pauline ideas. The employ- 
ment of the material as a Revelation of Peter showing the true 
nature of his apostleship and gospel is unaccountable (so far as our 
judgment avails) without Paul’s exposition of his own apostleship 
and gospel, including under the latter head particularly his gospel 
of “‘transfiguration’’ of the body, in the Corinthian correspondence. 
The particular terms employed in Mk. 9: 2, 5, perewophaby and cxyvy, 
are the distinctive technical terms of the Pauline doctrine, em- 
ployed nowhere in Synoptic literature save here, but repeatedly 
employed (though with some variation of language) by Paul (Rom. 
12:2; If Cor. 3:18; Phil. 8:21 (peracynparice); II Cor. 5:1, 4 
(cxjvos)) and dependent writers (Jn. 1:14 (cxyvotv) II Pt. 1:18 f.). 
It might be maintained that these two elements of the midrash, the 
‘‘transfiguration’’ of Jesus (vers. 2b-3) and the utterance of Peter 
(vers. 5 f.) being readily separable from the remainder, consti- 
tute the personal addition of Mark and therefore exhibit Paul- 
ine coloration of the language. It is safer to attempt no such re- 
finement of critical analysis, but to take the midrash as it stands 
as derived from some Jewish-Christian source. Even so it would not 
follow that there is literary interrelation with Paul. The termi- 
nology, so far as the technical use of cxyvoty is concerned, belongs to 
current Jewish apocalypse (cf. Rev. 21:3), and if the doctrine of 
metamorphosis of corruptible flesh into incorruptible ‘‘mind-sub- 
stance’? was also current (as shown in Philo’s account of the 
‘‘transfiguration’’ of Moses) it is difficult to imagine the use of any 
other term for the teaching. Here too we hesitate to pronounce in 
favor of any literary relation between Paul and Mark (or Mark’s 
source). It is a relation not of language but of ideas with which we 
have to do. The ideas are common to Hellenistic religion and Jewish 
apocalypse. 

7. Enough has already been said of the agglutination on the 
theme Receiving versus Stumbling in Mk. 9: 30-50 to show that the 
compiler uses heterogeneous material to enforce the lesson of Rom. 
14:1-15:7. Here the two terms technically applied are strikingly 
dissimilar. Paul uses for ‘‘receive’’ zpocrapBaverbu, Mark déyerba. 
Paul uses for ‘‘stumble’’ ridévac zpdcxoppa. Mark uses oxavdadrilew. 
Yet the sense is practically identical. At the very end (ver. 50) we 
have one expression which even Werner classes as distinctively 


268 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


Pauline, ‘‘Be at peace’’ (cipyvevere). Otherwise Mark’s language 
seems to be prompted by his sources. The adaptation of the material 
is in the interest of the lesson of Paul. 

8. Such is the case also in the story of the Rich Enquirer (Mk. 
10: 17-22). Eternal life is to be won not by obedience to ‘‘the com- 
mandments,’’ but by renunciation of all and following Jesus in 
the way of the cross. The lesson is Pauline—too Pauline for Mat- 
thew, who makes ‘‘eternal life’’ the reward of obedience to the 
commandments (Christianized by addition of the Law of Love) 
and ineculeates renunciation as a counsel of perfection (‘‘If thou 
wouldest be perfect, go, sell,’’ ete.). The language shows nothing 
distinctive of Paul. 

9. The spirit of the Servant is admirably defined in 10:45. Paul 
would have said the same. But the language doubtless merely sum- 
marizes the source. The ‘‘ransom for the many”’ (Avtpoy dvtt woAAGv; 
cf. 14:24, trép wodAAGv), often cited as a reminiscence of Is. 53:11 
LXX, is probably not even that. It was a current expression for 
the vicarious sacrifice of Moses at Horeb, who offered himself ‘‘the 
one for the many.’’ The idea is Pauline (better pre-Pauline), the 
expression belongs to the source. 

10. The answer to the Pharisees (Mk. 12:138-17), by its sug- 
gestion of the “‘image and superscription’’ of God stamped upon 
the human frame and marking the body itself as our spiritual offer- 
ing to God, recalls the exhortation of Rom. 12:1, ‘‘Offer your own 
bodies a living sacrifice to God; for this is your rational worship.’’ 
The resemblance is more striking because Paul’s exhortation is fol- 
lowed in 13:7 by the application, ‘‘Render tribute, therefore, to 
whom tribute is due.’’ In this case the dependence would be on the 
side of Paul. But there is no literary relation, and of course the 
saying of Jesus had more ways of reaching Paul than merely the 
Gospel of Mark, or any of its sources. 

11. More significant would be the use of Ps. 110:1 in Mk. 12: 
39-37 against the Son of David Christology. We have here not only 
a coincidence with Rom. 1:3 f., with use of the same Scripture em- 
ployed by Paul, but a coincidence of doctrine with Hebrews, which 
elaborates the Christhood ‘‘after the order of Melchizedek,’’ not 
dependent on pedigree, but by divine appointment. But only cur- 
rent Pauline teaching need be presupposed. The use of the Psalm 
passage was doubtless general in primitive Christian apologetic 
(cf. Acts 2: 34 f.). 

12. We have found the Little Apocalypse of the Thessalonian 
Epistles to be reflected in the Eschatological Discourse (Mk. 13), 
and here the unusal term “‘be not agitated’’ (2 O@poetcbe) which 


DIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 269 


forms the central lesson in 13:7 might well suggest direct literary 
dependence on II Thess. 2:2 (su) @pocioGa). More important still is 
the apparent use of Rom. 9:27 f. in Mk. 13:20. Whether the 
chapter as a whole can be accounted for without Pauline influence 
is another question, whereof the reader must form his own judg- 
ment after consideration of the evidence already adduced. But 
the single word OpocioGe, unusual though it be, and central in the 
exhortation on both sides, is a slender basis on which to build a 
doctrine of literary employment of Paul. Even the shortening of 
the days of the Son of Man does not prove literary dependence on 
Rom. 9: 27 f. 

13. More could probably be made of the words of Institution of 
the Sacrament (Mk. 14: 22-25), as evidence for direct use of I Cor. 
11; 23-25. There is here real coincidence of language: AaBov (éAaPev) 
dptov, evtAoynoas (ebyapiotyoas) éxdace, . . . Kal ete, TOUTS éoTL TO TOpd 
pov (“ov TO copa) . . . Kal AaBwv ToTYpioy (HoatTws Kai TO oTHpLOV) 
evxapioTnoas edwxev aditois, Kal elrev airois (Aéywv), TodTd (7d woTHpLov) éore 
TO alud pov THs SiabyKyns (y Kawy duabyKn éoriv ev TO Eve aiparr). When 
we compare this account with that of Luke’s Special Source it 
appears impossible to deny direct and even verbal dependence. 
But this is precisely one of the exceptional cases where constant 
repetition would preserve the ipsissima verba. Direct oral depend- 
ence is certain. The Pauline features of the interpretation stand 
out in such marked contrast to those of the Special Source that it 


is impossible not to recognize that such expressions as ‘‘the new 


covenant in my blood’’ are of Paul’s own coinage. Paul is original. 
Mark is dependent. But even here there is not enough to prove 
literary dependence. Mark simply uses the words of institution 
stereotyped in a church of Pauline practice. 

We may suppose the Gospel of Mark to have had its origin at 
Rome, or some similar Greek-speaking church of the West, a church 
not founded by Paul himself but having had as founders such 
chance-comers of the Petrine missions as Ambrosiaster describes as 
founders of the church at Rome, ‘‘Jews living at Rome in pursuit 
of their business, who after conversion (in Palestine?) impressed 
on the Romans the confession of Christ with retention of the Law.’’ 
We know from the Epistles that Paul was late in reaching this part 
of his appointed mission field and (as at Ephesus) found it already 
preoccupied. Several years before his arrival in Rome a church so. 
considerable as to call forth the great Epistle to the Romans was 
already in existence there, with its own well-developed institutions 
and practices. The most firmly fixed of all practices would doubtless 
be those attaching to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Unless 


270 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


by some strange coincidence the spirit and tone of the observance 
at Rome had come even before Paul’s arrival to take on the typical 
Pauline features of ‘‘distinction of the Lord’s body,’’ ‘‘commem- 
orating’’ and ‘‘having fellowship’’ in ‘‘the Lord’s death,’’ enter- 
ing into a ‘‘new covenant in the blood of Christ’’; while churches 
in the Petrine field of Antioch were using forms like that of Lk. 22: 
14-23 (8 text), or the liturgy of the Didaché, we must account for 
the coincidence between Mk. 14: 22-25 and I Cor. 11: 23 ff. by direct 
Pauline influence. The old ‘Petrine’ basis appears plainly in 14: 25, 
repeating Lk. 22:16, 18. But the superimposed and really dominant 
features are those insisted upon by Paul when seeking to correct 
the abuses at Corinth. The very nature of these abuses was that 
they made of the sacrament commemorative of the death of Christ 
(a death in which the believer must morally take part) a convivial 
banquet, whose watchword was like that of present-day Passover 
observance: ‘‘ Let all who are hungry come and eat. Let all who are 
needy enter and keep Passover. This year here, next year in the 
land of Israel. This year as slaves, next year as free men.’’ Paul 
objects to this disregard of the doctrine of the cross. The Markan 
form when compared with the Lukan ritual shows a Pauline trans- 
formation. There is no literary dependence. Fortunately the a text 
of Luke survives to show what actual copying of I Cor. 11: 23 ff. 
would produce. But the a text of Luke is a product of the second or 
third century. The Markan institution-section has a strong resem- 
blance to the Lukan a text in its composite character. But the trans- 
fer of Pauline terms is too free for literary dependence. The rela- 
tion is close, but still traditional and oral rather than literary. We 
can best account for it on the supposition already laid down. Mark 
is using the words of institution stereotyped in a church whose 
practice had come to be Pauline. Was this during the time before 
Paul had visited Rome? Is there any trace in Romans of an attempt 
to deepen the tone of observance of the Supper, such as we find in 
T Cor. 10: 14-22; 11: 17-34? Are we not compelled to suppose that 
if Pauline influence be present here it was due to Paul’s presence 
at Rome, his growing authority in that church before and after his 
heroie death, due perhaps most of all to the corps of fellow-workers, 
including Mark, whom he left behind at Rome, to ‘‘remember (him) 
in all things and to hold fast the traditions, even as (he) delivered 
‘them’’ (I Cor. 11:2)? 

14. The fact that ‘‘ Alexander and Rufus’’ are mentioned in Mk. 
15:21 as individuals known to the readers, while in Rom. 16:13 
a Rufus also appears, an associate of Paul ‘‘elect in the Lord,’’ 
whose mother, still living when Paul wrote, had been a mother to 


a 


DIRECT PAULINE INFLUENCE 271 


the Apostle also, has a certain romantic interest, but unfortunately 
affords no firm ground for critical conclusions. It is possible that 
this chapter of greetings was already known at Rome at the time of 
the origin of the Gospel of Mark, through its being attached as now 
to the Roman Epistle. It is also possible that the names of these asso- 
ciates of Paul were known far and wide. But it is more probable 
that the “‘epistle of commendation’’ for the deaconess Phoebe of 
Cenchreae which includes these greetings was originally sent to 
Ephesus. Hither way the chance of identity of this Rufus with the 
Rufus of Mk. 15:21 is too narrow to build on. The fact that the 
two sons of Simon of Cyrene are known to the readers of Mark, and 
mentioned, apparently to indicate the reliability of the traditions 
related of the crucifixion scene, throws very little light on the ques- 
tion of the date and composition of the Gospel. Certainly there is 
no literary relation between Mk. 15:21 and Rom. 16: 13. 

To the question whether any use is made in Mark of the deutero- 
Pauline Epistles of Hebrews and First Peter consideration must be 
given later. The result of our survey of the Pauline Epistles must 
be considered on the whole adverse. If the evangelist knew these 
writings the influence they have exerted upon him has reached his 
mind rather than his pen. The few cases of phraseology which 
might be designated Pauline are such as can be easily accounted 
for through the currency in oral and traditional teaching of certain 
half-stereotyped terms. 

But if the question be put in another form, less specific, but 
equally conclusive as regards the question of date and composition, 
the answer will be quite different. If it be asked “‘Can we imagine 
a gospel such as Mark taking form in a community ignorant of the 
teaching of Paul?’’ the answer must be a decided No. The whole 
aim of the Gospel, its Christology and soteriology, its discourses 
and the framework of their composition, especially what we are able 
to trace out of its relation to earlier sources, make it impossible to 
account for such a composition as this without the life, the thought, 
and the teaching of Paul. Mark shows a direct, but not a literary 
dependence on the teaching of the great Apostle to the Gentiles. 


wine 


Ths ae 
is Peralta: bah , 





‘ 


PART V 
CONSTRUCTIVE DATING 





ene a iy) ae d 
} A ‘ 
if ¥ Ga Ve. 
1 iy ca 4 \ a m 


4 


ety: 
t 


Vane 


{ 


n Hite the | 
ae a oT as 
vl ar inp yy ity 

i ats eas 
VERT 


f 
i 


; Dy ey 
UO hen 
aaah 





ae 


CHAPTER XX 


THE TRADITION AS AFFECTED BY 
FIRST PETER 


CONSTRUCTIVE criticism must avail itself to the utmost of the testi- 
mony of antiquity, losing not the minutest crumb of real informa- 
tion. On the other hand it would very soon be led fatally astray if 
it did not weigh each statement with utmost care, discriminating 
fact from inference or fancy. The tendency of legend and fancy 
even more than of real knowledge is to ‘‘grow from more to more,”’ 
and the only safeguard is discrimination. In the present case we 
have a very ancient nucleus of tradition. In Part I we have already 
sought to sift out its real significance, accounting for the statements 
made partly by actual information really transmitted from those 
cognizant of the facts, partly by the reporter’s own inference or 
adaptation, according to our best knowledge of his circumstances 
and motive. 

If our interpretation of the Papias fragment be correct the esti- 
mate it makes of the Gospel of Mark, ascribing the judgment to 
“‘the Elder,’’ dates in its earliest traceable form ca. 100-117. The 
Speaker is probably John of Jerusalem, one of two survivors (the 
unknown Aristion being the other) of the group known as ‘‘the 
Elders, the disciples of the Apostles.’’ Even if this conclusion be 
Incorrect in some minor particular it cannot be far from the truth. 
The speaker represents this authoritative group, and probably had 
been asked to pronounce judgment on the Gospel of Mark in sub- 
stantially the same form it now presents. Contrary to common as- 
sumption there is no evidence that the Elder brings Mark’s work 
into comparison, favorable or otherwise, with other writings. He 
merely states his idea of its reliability and value. So far as this 
implies tacit comparison, the function ascribed to these Elders and 
their other recorded utterances should inform us. Such approval as 
“‘the Elder’’ expressed would not go to the length of displacing the 


1On this point Zahn’s judgment is emphatic and coincides with our own. He 
states (Introd., II, p. 439) in speaking of the Elder’s complaint of the lack of 
‘forder’’: ‘‘ Variation from the order of another Gospel cannot here be meant; 
for in this case the point of criticism and defence would have to be the con- 
tradiction between Mark and the recognized authority . . . not want of order 
in general.’’ 


276 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


authority of the Elders themselves. Their ability to cite sayings and 
doings of the Lord as reported by Apostles was their chief distine- 
tion. A document which gave all of these, in systematic order, on 
apostolic authority, would make the word of ‘‘the Elders’’ them- 
selves superfluous. It is not probable that one of the group would 
give any such unqualified endorsement to a Greek gospel, composed 
by a non-apostolic writer. 

Nor does such appear to have been the fact. The Elders continue, 
as before, the guardians of orthodoxy and ultimate interpreters of 
the Lord’s ‘‘commandments.’’ John (if this be the Elder John) 
merely endorses the current opinion reflected in the title of the 
work as cited by Justin: ‘‘Memoirs (’Azopvypovetpara) of Peter.”’ 
It was doubtless accompanied (as custom prescribed) by the 
author’s name, ‘‘according to (xaré) Mark.’’ Whether the words 
‘according to’’ should be understood in a closer or remoter sense 
is a question probably not considered either by questioner or in- 
formant. John tells the enquirer that Mark really was associated 
with Peter, though not at the time of writing, and that so far as he 
went he could be relied upon. No more can be assumed as intended. 
But even so much is extremely welcome by way of confirmation. 
It corroborates what critics would probably have concluded inde- 
pendently. At the same time it does not indicate any special knowl- 
edge on the part of the Elder as to the origin of the Gospel 
submitted. In fact the enquirer himself was probably far less con- 
cerned for knowledge as to the date and conditions of origin of the 
work than for assurance as to its orthodoxy and reliability. On 
these points he is reassured. According to the Elder, Mark fairly 
renders what he had heard from Peter. 

The point of chief value in the judgment expressed is (strangely 
enough) that which we have most reason to regard as inference 
rather than transmitted information. The Elder’s criticism of the 
‘‘order’’ is almost certainly due to inference from the contents of 
the Gospel rather than to any knowledge through nearer or re- 
moter channels of the circumstances of its composition. In other 
words the Elder does not know when Mark was written. He 
probably does not even know where it was written, beyond the 
self-evident fact that it was prepared for some Greek-speaking 
church; though it is far easier to get information as to the circles 
whence a book emanates than as to its date. The Elder does know 
(and here lies the true value of his testimony) the character of 
these loosely coordinated anecdotes, and he knows something of the 
life-story of Peter and Mark. In the document he recognizes at once, 
because it is still in vogue in his time, the typical preacher’s story 


eS Eee 


THE TRADITION AND FIRST PETER 217 


in habitual use for synagogue and Church edification. The mere 
form of the compilation would tell him that it was rightly desig- 
nated dopvypovedpara. The contents, “‘sayings and doings of the 
Lord,’’ would tell him no less quickly that they were part of the 
accepted Petrine tradition. We have no need to suppose, nor are we 
justified in assuming, that he had special information in regard to 
the mode of composition of this Greek gospel from some far-off 
Gentile church. The Elder bases his judgment on the contents of 
the book. But for all that his judgment is far from worthless. It is | 
the judgment of one who knew the oral Petrine tradition thor- 
oughly, and could and did speak with authority. He considers the 
contents to be ‘‘miscellanies’’ (7 AcexPevta » tpaxPera) collected from 
Peter’s teaching and preaching, but apart from Peter’s personal 
supervision. 

As we have already seen, the inference to a post-apostolic date 
cannot strictly be traced back to the Elder. It first appears as a 
positive statement in Irenaeus ca. 186, and probably is no more 
than an unreflecting interpretation of the word yevopuevos (‘‘who had 
been’’) in the statement of Papias. But again, the fact that it is 
not a necessary inference does not prove it incorrect. On the con- 
trary, the awkward and improbable suppositions to which later 
writers are compelled to resort in their endeavor to find some other 
interpretation in better harmony with their desire for a truly 
‘‘apostolic’’ record, goes far to prove that the simple, natural in- 
ference of Irenaeus from the words of Papias was correct. Peter 
was no longer living. The Elder had not explicitly said so. His 
criticism of the ‘‘order’’ is probably given only to justify the term 
amopvnpovevpata (‘‘Recollections’’). But the criticism is absolutely 
just. What else can account for the phenomena of the composition 
than just this, that the apostolic age, when a valid order could have 
been obtained by simple enquiry from the eye-witnesses, was al- 
ready past? 

Unless, then, we resort to groundless fancy we are bound to sup- 
pose that the Elder, and those who come after him, were simply 


drawing inferences from the contents of Mark. They are not report- 


ing privately transmitted information. Nevertheless their inferences 
are of value because they are simple, natural, unstudied, based on 
general knowledge of the circumstances, precisely such as critics 
themselves would draw if not misled on the one side by exaggerated 
ideas of what could be known during the second century concern- 
ing the origin of the Gospels, and by exaggerated distrust on the 
other. 

The point at which inferences begin to be drawn from apologetic 


278 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


motives, using artificial combinations, is precisely that at which we 
begin to find disparity with the internal evidence. This belongs to 
the generation following the Elder. As we have seen, Papias is 
greatly concerned to prove the Gospel of Mark without error (ovdev 
jpapte Mdpxos). To justify his employment of it on a level with the 
‘‘Compend of the Lord’s Precepts,’’ which he ascribed to the 
Apostle Matthew (our own canonical Matthew), he needed to make 
its relation to Peter as close as possible. Mark could not be supposed 
to have heard all that Peter had to relate. Hence the non-appear- 
ance of large sections of Matthew. Nevertheless everything Mark 
did contain could be guaranteed. Papias strains the language of the 
Elder (éca éuvnpovevcey axpiBas eypayev) to mean that Mark ‘‘omitted 
nothing that he had heard, and set down nothing amiss’’ (udev ay 
nkovoe raparirely 7 WevoacOai TL év avrois). 

Papias was defending Church tradition against the claims of 
Gnostics like Basilides to have direct contact with Peter through 
other “‘interpreters’’ than Mark. For such defenders it was no small 
advantage to be able to appeal to the First Epistle of Peter, from 
which Eusebius tells us Papias ‘‘used testimonies.’’ Its witness was 
particularly desirable on this vital point of the closeness of the rela- 
tion of Peter to the dzoprnpovedyata which circulated as Peter’s 
under authority of Mark. Hence Papias could not afford to be in- 
different to the statement of I Pt. 5:18: ‘‘The church that is in 
Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark 
my son.’’ In Papias’ time the words were assumed to have been 
written by Peter himself, and the language being evidently sym- 
bolical (Mark, Peter’s spiritual ‘‘son,’’ the churches, ‘‘sisters’’ in 
election) ‘‘Babylon’’ was held to be a eryptogram for Rome. It 
was all the easier for Papias to adopt this (probably correct) in- 
terpretation, because the same eryptogram is used in Rey. 17:5, 
a book of which Papias was the ardent champion. Here, then, the 
apologist against Gnostic charges of mutilation of the apostolic 
tradition could find evidence of the most convincing sort, and of 
precisely the kind he desired. Both Gospel and Epistle were under- 
stood to emanate from Rome (a belief which, whatever its origin, 
was probably correct), and the Epistle brought Peter incontro- 
vertibly into immediate contact with Mark, in a relation of spiritual 
fatherhood, at precisely the time required; for the second century 
had not yet ventured to ascribe an early date to the Gospel of Mark. 
No wonder the author of the Muratorianum, if he mentioned First 
Peter at all (and his omission of it would be inexplicable), men- 
tioned it only in connection with the Gospel of Mark, just as he has 


THE TRADITION AND FIRST PETER 279 


done in the case of the First eae of John and the Gospel as- 
cribed to that Apostle. 

But modern criticism feels the gravest doubts regarding the 
authenticity of First Peter. All other writings ascribed to Peter, 
the Second Epistle, the Gospel, the Apocalypse, the Preaching, the 
_ Acts, are pseudonymous. Why should the first of the series be an 
exception? True, First Peter is older, better attested, of higher type 
than any of the rest. But could Peter write an epistle which but 
for the name attached we should certainly have ascribed to Paul? 
And if he could write an Epistle capable of being mistaken for 
Paul’s, why should he? Had Peter no message of his own? The 
Christian communities addressed are no longer ‘‘the churches of 
Asia’’ (I Cor. 16:19) but are now grown to cover almost the entire 
Anatolian peninsula (I Pt. 1:1). We may therefore suppose that 
Paul had gone to his reward, and that his lieutenants, Silvanus and 
Mark, have consequently attached themselves to the great Apostle 
of the Circumcision. We may further suppose that Paul’s mission 
field in Asia Minor, on account of the world-wide persecution which 
has broken out (I Pt. 4: 12-19; 5:9), stands in peculiar need of a 
word of encouragement and brotherly support from brethren ‘‘in 
Babylon.’’ But had Peter no independent gospel? Had he nothing 
to tell of his intercourse with the great Sufferer who is here depicted 
in the language of Isaiah? If Peter could perform such a feat, is it 
likely that he would send to the churches of Asia a letter so mani- 
festly patterned after Ephesians that a modern critic of high repu- 
tation could actually regard them as written by the same author? 
Such are some of the objections to Petrine authorship. Modern 
criticism dares not classify the work as more than deutero-Petrine. 

Considerations like the above may to some extent be met by con- 
cessions—if the concessions do not go to the extent of complete 
removal of the original claim. Thus Zahn would make Silvanus the 
immediate author a the writing, retaining Peter as instigator and 
framer of the composition. It could thus ‘be Pauline in the circles 
addressed, Pauline in language, Pauline even in ideas, save for an 
infinitesimal remnant, but still Petrine in authorization. Peter 
would be alive at the time of writing and able to sign his name. The 
stigma of pseudonymity attaching to all other writings ascribed 
to the fisherman-apostle would thus be removed. Such is the object 
of the theory. 

But the difficulty of date ifee the death of Peter is precisely 
the greatest of all. Ramsay himself found it impossible to accept the 
authenticity of the Epistle unless the lifetime of the Apostle could 
somehow be extended beyond the limits imposed by the unbroken 


280 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


testimony of antiquity. Peter met a martyr’s fate under Nero. Such 
is the universal testimony of the earliest writers, and there is not a 
trace of dissent. His fate even marks an epoch. It followed not long 
after Paul’s, and signalized the close of the period of apostolic 
teaching. Clement thus uses it to show the falsity of the claims of 
Basilides. If we refuse to accept this epoch-making date of the death 
of Peter under Nero we discredit early tradition to the point where 
any incredulity is justified. But the conditions revealed in First 
Peter, whether of geographical, literary, and doctrinal development 
within the Church, or of political development in its relation to the 
government, are such as belong to a later time, not easily located 
before the reign of Domitian. In that case Silvanus, or whoever else 
of Paul's disciples was the immediate author of the Epistle, must 
have delayed the execution of his commission for several years. But 
once this concession is made the whole case is surrendered. This is 
to place ourselves at the real point of view of Christian antiquity, 
whose pseudonymous writers in using the name of Peter felt au- 
thorized to convey the message they were sure Peter would have 
wished to send, without other commission than their own conviction 
that so the great Apostle would have spoken under circumstances 
such as their own. Moderns find it hard to reconcile pseudonymity 
with their idea of straightforward dealing. But much depends on 
the custom of the age. Church and Synagogue alike were fully ac- 
customed to the practice. In the present case, twenty years after 
Peter’s well-known martyrdom, the use of Peter’s name may have 
represented scarcely more than a transparent literary convention. 
At all events examples of pseudonymous letters, and especially of 
apocalypses or “‘prophecies,’’ are frequent in the early literature 
of the Church.’ 

Uncertainty regarding the date and authorship of First Peter 
makes it difficult for the critic to use such evidence as might be 
derived from it bearing on the origin of Mark. We may reasonably 
disregard the literal interpretation of the word ‘‘Babylon’’ in I Pt. 
5:13, assuming with leading authorities both ancient and modern 
that the term (whatever the motive) is symbolical, and the actual 
place of composition was Rome. In that case, pseudonymous or not, 
the document bears some evidence of the presence of both Peter and 
Mark in Rome at a date subsequent to the death of Paul. If authen- 
tic it supports the idea (whose beginnings we have ascribed to 
Papias, but which may be later) that Peter and his spiritual ‘‘son’’ 
after separation for a score of years were again brought into con- 


2On this point compare the judicious remarks of Ropes I.C.C. on James, 
pp. 8 ff., 51. 


ee 


THE TRADITION AND FIRST PETER 281 


tact, so that the work of gospel composition could be prepared for 
in direct and intimate association with the chief surviving witness. 
This conception is unquestionably responsible for the traditional 
view of the origin and character of the Gospel. It has shaped all 
ecclesiastical thinking on the subject since the second century. Its 
validity depends on the extent to which it agrees with the internal 
evidence. As we have seen, the Elder’s testimony is not strictly 
against it. It only anticipates the judgment the modern critic would 
also pass upon the “‘Reminiscences.’’ Does the character of the 
work suggest that it arose in the later years of Nero, or immediately 
after? Something further requires to be said concerning the re- 
liability of this epoch, the death of Nero, but in substance the ques- 
tion as we have just stated it is that which must be considered by 
those who maintain the authenticity of First Peter. 

Those who cannot admit the authenticity of First Peter must still 
reckon with its testimony on the question of Peter and Mark at 
Rome. For even if pseudonymous the author must have taken his 
stand on well-known facts regarding these leading characters of 
contemporary church history; for we may also disregard as need- 
lessly extreme the late dating of First Peter which would place it 
under Trajan, identifying the persecution described with that re- 
ferred to by Pliny. Now it is true that the expression ‘‘Babylon”’ 
in I Pt. 5:13 may well have been chosen by the author without any 
special reference to Rome, merely as a mask for the fictitious cir- 
cumstances under which he writes. The ‘‘elect of the ‘Dispersion’ ’’ 
in Anatolia are undergoing persecution. The ‘‘elect sister’’ is in 
captivity, of which ‘‘Babylon’’ is the classic symbol (Ps. 137:1). 
It is also supposable that Silvanus and Mark, names of significance 
to the Pauline churches addressed, are brought into association with 
Peter, representative of the Great Church since the death of Paul 
and James, without any actual contact in real life. Nevertheless the 
actual coming of Peter to Rome, even if only as a prisoner on his 
way to martyrdom, like Ignatius fifty years later, has strong tradi- 
tional and archaeological support. It is probable therefore that I Pt. 
5:13 rests on real fact, at least to this extent, that Peter actually 
was ‘‘carried away’’ (Jn. 21:18) from his flock in old age to suffer 
martyrdom at Rome.* Consequently the possibility would exist of 
contact there, contact nearer or more remote according to the condi- 
tions of Peter’s ‘‘bonds’’ (Jn. 21:18), with Pauline lieutenants 
such as Silvanus and Mark, the latter of whom at least we might | 


8 On the question of Peter’s coming to Rome compare E. T. Merrill, Essays 
in Early Christianity, Macmillan, 1924. Professor Merrill rejects the tradition 
entirely. 


282 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


well expect to find domiciled at Rome (II Tim. 4:11). Supposing 
First Peter to be a pseudonymous writing of some twenty years 
later the situation here implied would be a reasonable one on which 
to base a commendation of the teaching received through Silvanus, 
with (possibly) an indirect commendation of Mark’s ‘‘ Reminis- 
cences’’ as well. 

As between these two possible judgments of First Peter we have 
already indicated that which to us seems the more probable. Dis- 
agreement between primitive testimony and the internal evidence 
as to the origin of Mark begins with the attempt of Papias to bring 
the Elder’s statement regarding the ‘‘Reminiscences’’ into relation 
with I Pt. 5:13. The object of the statement was to explain the lack 
of ‘‘order.’’ The relation of the adzopvnpovevpara to the facts as Peter 
would have told them to any enquirer is not close. It is remote. The 
evangelist has not such a rdés, logical or chronological, as any close 
associate of the Apostle would surely display if near him at the 
time of writing. Zahn had the acumen to perceive this, and there- 
fore justly demands that the testimony of the Elder be interpreted 
as referring exclusively to the period before the association of Mark 
with Paul. A second period of association at Rome toward the end 
of Peter’s life, such as Papias conjectures on the basis of I Pt. 5: 13, 
would of course be at least as influential in determining the rds of 
the Gospel; but Zahn seems to regard this as of no consequence. 

Later apologists for Mark naturally followed in the footsteps of 
Papias. They were doubtless right as to the provenance of both the 
HKpistle and the Gospel. Even at the close of the second century 
something could still be known on such a point apart from internal 
indications. ‘‘Babylon’’ in I Pt. 5:18, interpreted with Papias, 
would be the main reliance of those who sought to defend Rome’s 
claim. The Roman apologists were also right in maintaining (for a 
time) that the Gospel was not written till after the death of Peter 
and Paul. Perhaps earlier generations still understood why so late 
a date was imperative. Later generations certainly did not. These 
insist on making the relation between Apostle and evangelist closer 
and closer till Mark becomes a mere automaton. Side by side with 
this increasing extravagance of the claim to apostolicity runs in- 
ventive fancy, supplying new and increasingly improbable explana- 
tions of the deficiencies which the aid of an eye-witness would have 
supplied. According to Clement Peter ‘‘learned of’’ Mark’s under- 
taking, but ‘‘neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.’’ Eusebius 
makes “‘the Spirit’’ responsible for the information conveyed to 
Peter, and offsets the strange indifference he appeared (on Clem- 
ent’s statement) to display toward Mark’s undertaking by declar- 


THE TRADITION AND FIRST PETER 283 


ing that he ‘‘commended the Gospel to the churches.’’ With Jerome 
we reach such claims as earlier apologists would gladly have made 
but for their clearer realization of the difficulties involved. Peter 
now dictates the Gospel to Mark just in the form in which it stands. 

All this later modification of the tradition is just so much testi- 
mony to the reluctance of later apologists to admit what the earliest 
testimony frankly avowed: that Mark had not the true ‘‘order’’ 
and could not obtain it because the age of the eye-witnesses was past. 
As Papias expressed it: ‘‘He was not a follower of the Lord, but 
afterwards, as I said, of Peter.’’ 

We cannot be quite certain who first began this appeal to I Pt. 
5:13 as supplementing and defining the meaning of the Elder. It 
clearly was not the Elder himself. It was probably Papias. Possibly 
Clement should have the credit. Either way the important question 
is not the origin, but the validity of the appeal. Can it properly be 
argued from I Pt. 5:13 that Mark was associated with Peter at 
Rome after the death of Paul, and if so can this association have 
continued down to a date subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem? In 
the former case the apologetic development of the later tradition 
will have better ground. Explain as we may the remoteness of the 
apparent relation of the evangelist to eye-witnesses, Mark will at 
least have been near to Peter in his later vears, able (apart from 
possible obstacles not apparent in the Epistle) to refresh his youth- 
ful memories of the Apostle’s reminiscences. In the latter case there 
will be at least a better chance for dating within the apostolic age. 

The arguments adduced in the preceding treatise* in favor of a 
date ca. 87 a.v. for First Peter, and a Roman provenance, need not 
here be repeated. If these conclusions are correct the symbolism of 
the conclusion of the Epistle, corresponding in some degree with its 
opening lines, is the indispensable ‘‘mask of pseudonymity.’’ Ex- 
plicit mention of the place from which and that to which the Epistle 
was written would have tended to destroy the illusion. Nevertheless 
‘‘Babylon’’ was rightly taken by the ancients as standing for Rome 
(whether so intended or not), and the Anatolian churches really 
were those to whom the encouragement under persecution was ad- 
dressed. The persecution will have been that of Domitian, which is 
the same looked forward to as about to break forth in Hebrews, a 
writing probably known to the writer of First Peter. The names 
employed are those which would carry most weight for the writer’s 
purpose of brotherly encouragement, ‘‘Peter,’’ who as the great 
companion apostle of Paul would speak with most authority in such 


4 Harvard Theol. Studies, VII, pp. 28-30. 


284 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


a message, ‘‘Silvanus,’’ associated with Paul in the founding of 
most of these churches, and ‘‘Mark,’’ also associated with Paul in 
relation to these churches (Col. 4:10), and in addition Peter’s own 
spiritual ‘‘son.’’ This epithet for Mark is chosen with reference to 
the relations of Mark’s boyhood described in Acts 12:12, and may 
have reference also to the authorship of the Gospel, which was 
probably already in circulation by 87 a.p. The pseudonymous author 
of First Peter, accordingly, would have it understood that Peter 
and Mark were again thrown together toward the close of the 
Apostle’s life. He held (rightly or wrongly) to the idea that ‘‘ Baby- 
lon’’ (Rome?) was the scene of this reunion of spiritual father 
and son, thus linking together the mission fields of Peter and Paul. 
Of Paul himself no single syllable is uttered, and this is one of the 
serious obstacles to the authenticity of the Epistle, addressed as it 
is to churches of Pauline foundation. The omission is strange on 
any supposition, stranger as we go back toward Paul’s martyrdom. 
The commendation of Silvanus, and especially of Mark, does not 
make amends, but may be an unconscious substitute. 

The evidence thus elicited from First Peter is shght and dubious, 
but should not be neglected. The author may be regarded as writ- 
ing ca. 87 A.D. He appears already embued with the idea (seemingly 
present in Clement ad Cor. v. 4 and vi. 1, and gradually reaching 
the surface through Jn. 21:18, Dionysius of Corinth, and later 
fathers) that Peter in his old age (Jn. 21:18) was carried prisoner 
to Rome, and there suffered martyrdom, not long after Paul. In 
fact according to Dionysius the martyrdom was ‘‘on the same occa- 
sion’’ (xpos rév airév xaipov). The testimony is not above suspicion, 
and has in fact been vigorously assailed, but taken in conjunction 
with the archaeological evidence for the tomb of Peter at Rome (a 
boast asserted without denial before the close of the second cen- 
tury) it claims our credence. To deny that Peter suffered martyr- 
dom at Rome not long after Paul would be to show less of historical 
impartiality than of unreasonable skepticism. If such was the 
Apostle’s fate we can well understand that Pseudo-Peter, writing © 
at least a score of years later, should conceive of him as enjoying the 
same freedom of intercourse enjoyed by Paul in similar captivity 
(Acts 28: 30 f.), and in addition as resuming former relations with 
Mark. Whether Peter actually did have opportunity to teach at 
Rome, or actually did come again into contact with Mark, even for 
the briefest interchange, is of course quite a different question. 


CHAPTER XXI 
THE DATE OF PETER’S ‘DEPARTURE’ 


Harnack has brought out with clearness in his Chronologie that 
the primitive Church had two epoch-making dates, one ‘‘twelve 
years’’ from the crucifixion, determining the end of the locus peni- 
tentiae of Israel and the beginning of evangelization of the Gentiles. 
This was very definitely marked by the persecution of Agrippa, 
which cost James son of Zebedee his life, and compelled Peter to 
leave Jerusalem. We have seen how definitely this epoch was fixed 
in early Christian thought in our study of the Little Apocalypse 
presupposed in the Thessalonian Epistles. The crucifixion was dated 
in 29-30 a.p. The persecution of Agrippa began in 41-42, Peter’s 
flight from Jerusalem taking place at Passover 42. It was therefore 
just “‘twelve years,’’ as the tradition maintained, from the cruci- 
fixion, which on astronomical grounds must be dated in a.p. 80 
rather than 29.* 

The other epoch was fixed by the death of Nero, twenty-six years 
later (June 9, 68), or more exactly by the death of Peter, which was 
determined in round numbers as having occurred ‘‘in the twelfth 
year of Nero,’’ twenty-five years after Peter’s departure from 
Jerusalem (67 a.p.). Peter’s martyrdom was followed (as had been 
that of James son of Zebedee) by the grewsome end of the perse- 
eutor, a fact which may have helped to fix the date in mind. Ac- 
cording to Harnack, the date of Peter’s death was obtained by add- 
ing together the two periods of the apostolic age, “‘twelve years’’ 
of evangelization among the Jews, twenty-four (sometimes 25) 
among the Gentiles. The application of the ‘‘forty years’’ of Ps. 
95:10 to unbelieving Israel in Heb. 3:17 suggests that the out- 
break of the Jewish war and death of Nero (June 9, 68) may have 
fixed the latter. At all events the date of Peter’s departure from 
Jerusalem was ultimately assumed to coincide with his arrival in 
Rome, his stay in the world-metropolis covering the whole period 
of the evangelization of the Gentiles. Clement of Alexandria, as 
we have seen, is so preoccupied with this traditional chronology 
that in attempting to refute the claims of Basilides he asserts 
roundly that the teaching of the Apostles did not extend after the 
reign of Nero, apparently forgetting, for the time being, the excep- 


1J. K, Fotheringham in Journal of Philology, XXIX (1903), pp. 100-118. 


286 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


tional case of John, with whom, of course, Basilides made no claim 
of direct relation. In reality the death of Paul ca. 61, of James in 
62, and of Peter some three years later, left the Church deprived 
of all the great apostolic leaders, with possible exception of John 
concerning whom the tradition was in dispute. The age of the teach- 
ing of the apostles might well seem to have reached its end with the 
martyrdom of Peter ‘‘under Nero,’’ whose violent end (approxi- 
mately) ‘‘forty years’’ after the crucifixion would easily form a 
second epoch of the Church. Certainly the fact is not without sig- 
nificance that so early, so learned, and so painstaking a chronog- 
rapher as Clement should. fix this epoch, while passing over en- 
tirely the tradition elsewhere accepted by himself of the ‘‘aged’’ 
John at Ephesus. The martyrdom of Paul and Peter ‘‘under Nero”’ 
is a date which cannot be set aside by any evidence yet available. 

The journey of Peter directly from Jerusalem to Rome, long an 
accepted interpretation of Acts 12:17 (‘‘he departed and went to 
another place’’), has in recent times been generally abandoned as 
incompatible with the references of Paul to Peter’s missionary ac- 
tivities in various quarters, his stay at Antioch, attested not only 
in Gal. 2:11, but by early and reliable tradition, and above all as 
excluded by the implications of Romans. It is impossible to suppose 
that this Epistle would have contained no reference to the fact if 
Peter had already visited Rome. In like manner the later Pauline 
Epistles make it practically certain that Peter did not come to 
Rome, if at all, until after these were written. The first suggestion 
of any residence of Peter in Rome is in the doubtful expression 
‘‘Babylon’’ of I Pt. 5:13; and First Peter, as we have seen, cannot 
in any event be regarded as an early writing. Its dependence on 
Romans and Ephesians would alone suffice to prove it of later date 
than these. But it still remains to show whether, post-Pauline as 
the Epistle is, it may not be placed within the lifetime of its reputed 
author. 

The closing years of Nero’s reign, following the martyrdom of 
Paul and the great fire in Rome in the summer of 64, which Nero 
made the pretext for his savage onslaught on the Christians of the 
city, are not the period from which such a letter would naturally 
emanate. If Peter was in any sense its author, Rome the place from 
which he was writing, and the churches founded by Paul in Ana- 
tolia the brotherhoods addressed, we have a right to expect that 
there would be some reflection of conditions as they were at Rome, 
and at least some mention of Paul and his heroic fate. Only a date 
after the death of Nero makes it conceivable that Peter should have 
written without reference to this situation. A post-Neronic date is 


‘ 


PETER’S DEPARTURE 287 


made still more inevitable by the author’s references to official 
persecution of Christians ‘‘throughout the world,’’ not because of 
particular crimes, the flagitia cohaerentia nomini, of which Nero’s 
victims had been accused, but because of the Name itself. Neronic 
persecutions were not ‘‘for the Name.’’ In First Peter suffering 
may be “‘for the Name,’’ just as in Mark one who does the believer 
a kindness ‘‘in name that he is of Christ will in no wise lose his 
reward’’ (Mk. 9:41). A study of the conditions which could give 
birth to a gospel such as Mark, with its exaltation of martyrdom as 
the true path of ‘‘eternal life’’ (Mk. 8: 28-10:45), would not be 
complete without some survey of the outbreak of Roman persecu- 
tion which began under Nero. 

Doubtless the cruelty of Nero at Rome gave the signal for mob 
violence in many quarters throughout the Empire. In Anatolia par- 
ticularly, Jewish hatred was ever on the alert, and the powerful 
protection Paul had enjoyed from his Roman friends (Acts 19:31) 
would be paralyzed in view of the precedents set at Rome. But even 
the precedents set at Rome did not permit the kind of condemna- 
tion that is assumed to be possible in First Peter. On this point Sir 
William M. Ramsay speaks with authority, and he has so clearly 
set forth the difficulty (if not impossibility) of dating First Peter 
before the death of Nero that we need only refer here to his well- 
known chapters [X-XIII in The Church wm the Roman Empire. 
These conclude with an effort to place the Apostle’s death at a later 
date, thus permitting us to regard the Epistle as authentic. If this 
be indeed possible it will have a bearing on our present enquiry 
too important to be ignored. It will not indeed involve an earlier 
dating for the Gospel, since Peter’s lifetime might easily on this 
theory be carried down even to the reign of Domitian, and that of 
Mark (whose work as writer of the Gospel is assumed to be subse- 
quent to Peter’s death) would be later still. But if there was this 
later period of years of association between Peter and Mark at 
Rome, after the death of Paul, as Papias and later apologists as- 
sume, our conception of the circumstances of origin of the Gospel 
can hardly fail to take on a very different aspect. We have need, 
therefore, to consider whether the ancient epoch of Peter’s death 
was in reality well founded, or whether the primitive church was 
in error in holding it to have taken place ‘‘under Nero.’’ 

On the subject of Roman law and its application to church 
affairs in the first century Sir William speaks with authority. On 
questions of New Testament criticism he hardly claims to offer an 
utibiased opinion. His own explanation of how he was brought to 
set aside as erroneous the primitive date for the death of Peter is 


288 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


interesting, and has a bearing on the merits of the question. A foot- 
note (p. 283) explains that ‘‘In the original lectures this date 
(about 80 A.D.) was treated as inconsistent with Petrine authorship. 
A conversation with Dr. Hort suggested the view now taken”’ (that 
‘‘while the tradition that St. Peter perished at Rome is strong and 
early, the tradition about the date of his death is not so clear’’). 

Had Sir William’s attention been directed to the passage in the 
Stromateis of Clement (VII, xvii. 106 f.) to which reference has 
been already so frequently made, he would hardly have made this 
statement concerning the tradition as to the date of Peter’s death. 
Since it is not referred to in his discussion of the subject we should 
perhaps adduce it in full. 

The teaching of the Lord came to an end half-way in the reign of Ti- 
berius. That of his Apostles ended under Nero, extending to the “offering” 
(Aeroupyla, that is, the martyrdom) of Paul. Afterwards, about the times 
of the Emperor Hadrian, appeared those who introduce the heresies, and 
prolonged their days until the reign of the elder Antoninus, even as does 
this Basilides, in spite of his claiming Glaukias as his teacher, calling him 
(as they have the effrontery to do) the interpreter (épunveds) of Peter.? 


Sir William also refers, in the note already cited, to Lightfoot’s 
Excursus in Vol. II of his Clement (p. 494 ff.) as the source of his 
argument for a date nearer to Clement’s times (ca. 90 a.p.) for the 
death of Peter. Had he also consulted Lightfoot’s exhaustive study 
of the whole question of dating by the Roman succession, which 
occupies a larger part of the preceding volume, instead of limiting 
himself to the brief Excursus based upon it in Vol. II, he would have 
found on p. 64 the following simple and complete explanation of 
the apparent discrepancy in Tertullian on which he bases his whole 
ease for a variant tradition at Rome making Peter the immediate 
predecessor of the Roman Clement. 


The Clementine romance (Clementine Homilies and Recognitions) 
emanated from Syria or some neighbouring country, and betrays no knowl- 
edge of Rome or the Roman Church. A leading idea in this fiction is the 
exaltation of its hero Clement, whom it makes the depositary of the apos- 
tolic tradition. The author’s ignorance left him free to indulge his invention. 
He therefore represented Clement as the immediate successor of St. Peter, 
consecrated by the Apostle in his own lifetime. Though the date of this | 
work cannot have been earlier than the middle of the second century, yet 
the glorification of Rome and the Roman bishop obtained for it an early 


2 Avdackanla rod Kuplov redelouvrar wecobvrwy T&v Tod TiBeplov xpbvwv. 7 5é TSv dmoc- 
Todwy avrod méxpe yé THs HavdAov Aaroupylas él Népwvos redelovrar. Kdrw dé repli rovs 
*Adptavod tov Bacidéws xpdvous of Tas alpéces émivonoavtes yeybvact. cal wéxpe ye THs 
*Avtwrlvov Tov mperBurépou diérervay HrLKlas, kaOdwep 6 Baowldns, kav Tava émvypd- 
gnrat diddoxadov, ws avxovowv avrol, roy Ilérpov épunvéa. 





PETER’S DEPARTURE 289 


and wide circulation in the West. Accordingly even Tertullian speaks of 
Clement as the immediate successor of St. Peter. This position, however, is 
not assigned to him in any list of the Roman bishops, but only appears in 
this father as an isolated statement. 


This is by no means mere unsupported conjecture, which Light- 
foot was not in the habit of giving. He states clearly on p. 344 that 
we have no means of determining ~ 


whether Tertullian, when he states that the Roman Church recorded 
Clement to have been ordained by St. Peter, and himself therefore pre- 
sumably regards Clement as the Apostle’s next successor in the episcopate, . 
was influenced directly or indirectly by the Clementine fiction, or whether 
it was his own independent inference drawn from the fact that Clement 
had been a hearer of St. Peter.® 


On the other hand Lightfoot traces back the endeavor to recon- 
cile the Roman succession (which invariably makes Linus the suc- 
cessor of Peter) with the Clementine romance a full generation 
before Tertullian. He lets us see it in various stages of its develop- 
ment till no doubt can reasonably remain. Thus by one of the most 
brilliant examples of documentary criticism he demonstrates the 
derivation from the Memoirs of Hegesippus (ca. 168) of the follow- 
" ing passage from Epiphanius (Haer. xxvii. 6) : 

But possibly after Clement was appointed and had waived his claims (if 
indeed it did so happen, for I only surmise it, I do not affirm it), subse- 
quently after the death of Linus and Cletus, when they had held the 
bishopric twelve years each after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, which 
happened in the twelfth year of Nero (4.p. 65), he (Clement) was again 
obliged to take the bishopric. Howbeit the succession of the bishops in Rome 
is as follows; Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Euarestus, 
Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Pius, Anicetus, who has been mentioned 
above in the catalogue. 


Not only Hegesippus (in the fragment here quoted), but Ire- 
naeus after him (Haer. III, iii. 3) tries to square the claims of the 
Romance with the dates of the succession, by making Clement at 
the same time third from Peter and Paul, and also ‘‘one who had 
been a hearer of the blessed Apostles and been conversant with 
them’’; though he does not support his harmonistic theory by ap- 
peal (as Hegesippus had done) to the passage in the Epistle of 
Clement (liv.) urging the waiver of just claims for the sake of the 
Church’s peace. 

We need not pursue further with Lightfoot the disturbing effect 

8 Not improbably the Roman Clement’s own reference (ad Cor. v.) to Peter 


and Paul as belonging to ‘‘our own generation’? (dmodelyyara rijs yeveds judr) 
may have had a share in giving rise to this belief. 


290 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


upon certain variant forms of the Roman episcopal catalogue of 
this endeavor to make of Clement in the West a counterpart of 
Polycarp in the Hast as a disciple of the Apostles and ordained by 
them. Nothing could be more thorough and scholarly than Light- 
foot’s demonstration. The succession, which placed Linus and Cletus 
(Anencletus in Irenaeus) between Clement and the martyred 
Apostles, gives the true history. The Syrian romance has brought 
to it only the embellishment of legend. 

Lightfoot certainly makes it highly probable in his later Ex- 
cursus (Vol. II, pp. 490 ff.) that Peter was brought to Rome not 
far from the time of the Neronic persecution (64-65), and did be- 
come a victim there in the Vatican gardens of Nero’s fantastic 
cruelties, shortly before or after the martyrdom of Paul. But if 
anything could be clearer from his demonstration than the legend- 
ary origin of the claim that he ordained Clement, it would be the 
eroundlessness of Sir William’s assertion that ‘‘Roman tradition 
during the latter part of the second century placed the martyrdom 
much later than the time of Nero.’’ The only basis alleged for this 
assertion is the passage from Tertullian already referred to (De 
Prescript. 32) which claims ordination by Peter for Clement. Ter- 
tullian himself refutes this. Indeed even Sir William admits that 
‘“Tertullian also in one passage (Scorp. xv.) seems to assign it (the 
martyrdom of Peter) to the time of Nero.’’ But he points out that 
‘‘in another passage’’ (the De Prescriptione) 


he mentions the tradition of the Roman Church that Clement was ordained 
by St. Peter. The latter passage is the strongest evidence which we possess 
upon the point, and it clearly proves that the Roman tradition during the 
latter part of the second century placed the martyrdom much later than the 
time of Nero. 


If ‘‘the strongest evidence which we possess’’ for a post-Neronic 
date of Peter’s death is no stronger than this alleged discrepancy 
between two passages of Tertullian the contention is weak indeed. 
Lightfoot has made unmistakable the legendary source of Ter- 
tullian’s claim that the Roman Clement had been ordained by Peter. 
It rests on no better foundation than the Syrian romance of the 
Clementina. Others, such as Hegesippus, who attempted the same 
identification of the Roman bishop with the hero of the Romance, 
did not change the accepted date of Peter’s death to claim this 
apostolic ordination. They merely carried back Clement’s ordina- 
tion to the times of Nero, holding up his alleged suppression of his 
rights during the intervening bishoprics of Linus and Anencletus 
as an example of self- abnegation which should appeal to the Co- 


PETER’S DEPARTURE 291 


rinthians who had rebelled against bishops appointed by the Apostles 
in favor of appointees of their own. If Hegesippus could thus carry 
back the ordination of Clement we have no reason for supposing 
that Tertullian could not do the same. His statement in Scorp. xv. 
is clear proof that he had no more doubt than anyone else that 
Peter was martyred ‘‘under Nero.’’ Tertullian, then, simply joins 
the unbroken ranks of the series of witnesses who attest from the 
beginning this primitive date for the ‘‘departure’’ of the Apostolic 
witnesses. 

There was, of course, a natural tendency to approximate in time 
the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, which had actually taken place 
within a very few years of one another, under the same tyrant, at 
the same great “‘‘Babylon’’ drunken with the blood of the saints 
and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev. 17:6). It is 
significant of this approximation, as well as of the uncertainty re- 
garding the precise year, that Origen, among others, places the 
martyrdom of Peter first. The Roman Clement, less than a genera- 
tion after the event, associates the two great martyrs, whose shrines 
were cherished at Rome as the chief glory of its church as early as 
the time of Gaius (180-200). Addressing the Corinthians ca. 95 
A.D. Clement speaks (ch. v) of Peter and Paul, in contrast with such 
Old Testament martyrs as Abel, Joseph, Moses, and David, as “‘ex- 
amples belonging to our own generation,’’ an expression which later 
writers would naturally strain to the utmost. But he certainly does 
not mean that these martyrdoms had occurred recently, since he 
adds : 


Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, 
who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, 
set a brave example among ourselves. 


Ignatius, a score of years later, writing to the Roman church, 
again associates the two (ad Rom. iv.) as having “‘laid command- 
ments on’’ those at Rome. Like Polyearp, his friend and fellow- 
bishop, Ignatius probably knew First Peter and would of course be 
influenced by it. Dionysius of Corinth writes to Soter of Rome ca. 
170 referring to the double martyrdom as having taken place xara 
rov abvrov xoipdv. Obviously the catalogue of Roman bishops and the 
tradition of the joint martyrdom have a common starting-point, 
which is no other than the date assumed by Clement of Alexandria 
as the basis of his chronology, the martyrdom of Peter and Paul 
‘“under Nero.’”’ 

It is true, then, that ‘‘the tradition that St. Peter perished in 
Rome is strong and early.’’ But it is far from the fact to say that 


292 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


‘‘the tradition about the date of his death is not so clear.’’ We 
might almost reverse this statement. The tradition is primarily 
chronological rather than geographical. It marked an epoch, the 
beginning of the End. To later writers its chief value lay in estab- 
lishing direct relation with the apostolic generation, though it could 
also be turned to account in glorification of Rome, as compared with 
some other apostolic sees. It was general and not local only, and 
goes back to a Roman writer who could refer to the martyrdom as 
an ‘‘example to our own generation.’’ Irenaeus, therefore, when he 
dates the writing of Matthew ‘‘while Peter and Paul were preach- 
ing and founding the church in Rome,’’ and continues: ‘‘ After 
their departure (¢f0d0s), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, 
also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had 
preached,’’ is giving no vague and general chronology. He is using 
the common and accepted epoch for the end of the apostolic age, 
the ‘‘departure’’ of Peter and Paul at Rome ‘‘under Nero.’’ The 
date is fixed variously from the twelfth year of Nero (65 s.p.)* to 
the fourteenth, according to the precise number of years reckoned 
from the epoch of the martyrdom of James and Peter’s flight from 
Jerusalem (42). But the mention of Paul makes it certain that by 
‘‘departure’’ Irenaeus means ‘“‘martyrdom’’ (cf. Heb. 18:7, 7 
éxBaois) and even the variation as to the precise year of Nero’s reign 
makes it the more certain that there was no variation concerning 
the fact that it was ‘‘under Nero.’’ 

Later apologetic busied itself, as we have already noted, with the 
creation of a twenty-five year pastorate of Peter at Rome. Not by 
any attempt such as Ramsay’s to bring down the date of his martyr- 
dom beyond the reign of Nero (a date which Soltau believed had 
never been disputed), but by bringing the Apostle of the circum- 
cision to the metropolis of Gentile Christianity before the coming 
of Paul! Disregarding the intention of the ancient tradition to 
account for the non-apostolic ‘‘order’’ of Mark’s Gospel, intent 
only on attaching to it the highest possible authority attainable 
through nearness to the eye-witnesses, transcribers seized upon the 
literal sense of the term ‘‘departure’’ (éfod0s), employed by Ire- 
naeus in a conventional symbolic usage, and applied it to Peter’s 
departure from Jerusalem ‘‘twelve years’’ after the crucifixion. 
By this means Rome obtained a great accession to its claims as an 

4So Hegesippus ap. Epiphanius. But even if we could be sure of Hegesippus 
as authority the date is suggestive of the method of round numbers (‘‘ twelve 
years’’ from the crucifixion to Peter’s departure from Jerusalem, ‘‘twelve 


years’’ for Linus his successor at Rome, ‘‘twelve years’’ for Anencletus). It 
was probably an approximation to the date of Nero’s persecution (64-65). 


PETER’S DEPARTURE 293 


apostolic see, and at the same time the Gospel of Mark was given 
a closer relation to Peter. Thus some of the later uncials and cur- 
Sives append a subscription to the Gospel declaring that this Gospel 
was published ‘“‘twelve years after the ascension of Christ.’’ The 
source of the date is self-evident, and is only made more obvious 
by the variant of some manuscripts giving ‘‘ten’’ as the number of 
years. The source is the Chronicon of Eusebius, which displays the 
same variation. Eusebius gave this date in fact as that for Mark’s 
‘““preaching the gospel in Egypt and Alexandria,’’ later writers 
taking this to be ‘‘the Gospel’’ of Mark. Eusebius refers of course 
to the epoch of the apostolic ‘“‘departure’’ from Jerusalem, when 
Peter was in reality first separated from Mark, who accompanied 
Barnabas not many years after 42 a.p. at least to Cyprus and pos- 
sibly even to Alexandria (Acts 15:39). The best texts of the Chrom- 
con give the date for this “‘preaching’’ of Mark as the third year 
of Claudius (43 A.p.), that represented by the Armenian gives it 
as the first (41). The two dates are meant to designate ‘‘twelve’’ 
and ‘‘ten’’ years after the crucifixion, respectively, according to 
the reckoning followed in each case. In his History (II, xiv. xv) 
Eusebius makes this same date (“‘during the reign of Claudius’’) 
that of Peter’s going to Rome, where in company with Peter he 
writes the Gospel, afterward carrying it with him to Alexandria. 

The curious variation of Chrysostom (proem. in Matt.) from the 
otherwise uniform representation of the tradition that the Gospel 
was written in Rome, is due to a similar explanation of its lack of 
apostolic supervision. Mark performs his work of writing the Gos- 
pel immediately after separation from Peter. The episcopal succes- 
sion at Alexandria claimed Mark as its founder (perhaps with some 
ground after his work with Barnabas in Cyprus). Hence according 
to Chrysostom the request of disciples for the composition and its 
satisfaction by the evangelist, which all other witnesses refer to 
Rome, was ‘‘in Egypt.’’ As these sporadic attempts in antiquity 
to date the Gospel shortly after 42 a.p. are quite obviously based 
on utterances which in their earliest form merely state that after 
Peter’s ‘‘departure’’ Mark ‘‘preached the gospel’’ (sometimes as 
in Euseb. H.E. II, xvi. ‘‘preached that Gospel of which he is a 
compiler’’) in Egypt or elsewhere, they are rightly disregarded 
by even the most conservative of modern critics. In cases where 
they receive some mention, as by Salmond (Hastings’ B.D. s.v. 
‘“Mark,’’ Vol. III, p. 261b) reference is usually made to Harnack’s 
Chronologie, pp. 70 and 124. The reader who looks up his refer- 
ence will find that it has nothing whatever to do with the composi- 
tion of the Gospel, but simply gives the third year of Claudius 


294 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


(variants from first to third year) as the date when ‘‘Mark the 
evangelist who had been Peter’s interpreter, preached Christ in 
Egypt and Alexandria.’” 

The outcome of this enquiry into the testimony of antiquity is 
not materially different from results obtained by others. The one 
point in which all really ancient authorities agree is that the Gos- 
pel was written after the ‘‘departure’’ of Peter. The attempt of 
later writers to substitute some other ‘‘departure’’ for that which 
Irenaeus clearly indicates by including ‘‘Paul’’ as well as Peter, an 
attempt accompanied and characterized by awkward expedients to 
find some other reason why the better ‘‘order’’ which Peter could 
have supplied is not to be found in the Gospel, only serves to em- 
phasize the connection made by our oldest informant between the 
admitted defect and its cause. Papias tells us that Mark had no 
access to first-hand witnesses. Since it is to explain this defect of 
the Gospel that the statement is adduced, and since such a situation 
is not reasonably supposable in the period while hundreds of eye- 
witnesses and many of the Apostles (including Peter) were still 
alive (I Cor. 9:5; 15:6) one must assume, whether the Elder made 
the explicit statement or not, that Irenaeus and earlier authorities 
were right in understanding his testimony to refer to the death of 
Peter. The period of the teaching of the Apostles, as Clement of 
Alexandria says, ended with the reign of Nero (ob. 68 a.p.). Clem- 
ent probably made tacit exception of John, whom he believed to 
have attained a great age. But in its origin the tradition cannot 
have contemplated any such exception. It was meant to include all 
the leading Apostles and eye-witnesses. It had special reference to 
Peter, whose report of the sayings and doings of the Lord was 
primarily concerned. We can only conclude that church teachers 
in the period of the Elder were quite well aware that the miscel- 
laneous arrangement of Mark’s material was not an authentic 
‘“‘order,’’ and that in taking this exception to an otherwise com- 
mendable work they meant to characterize it as in the full sense 
of the term *‘post-apostolic.”’ 

We have sought to give just and impartial consideration to every 
known element of the external evidence bearing on the date and 
composition of Mark. The testimony readily falls into two com- 
ponent parts, the primitive witness of the Elder cited by Papias; 
and the apologetic, beginning with Papias himself. The testimony 


5 After the careful discussion given to this relatively late evidence by Zahn, 
Swete, and others, it is hardly needful to give it further consideration. The 
reader may, however, be referred to the discussion by the present writer on 
p- 21 of Harvard Theological Studies, Vol. VII. 


0 EEE 


Ta <<, * 


PETER’S DEPARTURE 295 


of the Elder contains two factors of value, (1) the implied nature 
of the document submitted, which was then as now ascribed to 
Mark, and probably bore the title by which it is known to Justin 
(contemporary of Papias) of ‘‘Reminiscences of Peter’’ (’Azopvypo- 
vevpata Ierpov; cf. Dial. evi.) ; (2) the Elder’s own judgment of 
its contents as compared with oral tradition, still current in his 
time (ca. 110). This testimony should be welcomed as of the utmost 
value. Both in antiquity and for moderns it represents the criti- 
cism of a group called ‘‘the Elders, the disciples (ua6yra/), or suc- 
cessors (duaddxor), of the Apostles,’’ proud of their function as 
guardians of orthodoxy and heirs of oral tradition. The judgement is 
pronounced upon our earliest extant record of the sayings and 
doings of the Lord. No other discount need be made from it than is 
incident to the perhaps exaggerated importance attached by the 
Elders to their own office as representatives of the Apostles. All that 
the testimony requires is to be understood in the sense it would bear 
to the Elder’s contemporaries, and this sense we have endeavored 
to give. The testimony amounts to this: the Gospel of Mark is really 
what it purports to be, a miscellany of sayings and doings of the 
Lord collected from reminiscences of Peter. But it is no more than 
this. It is done with care and faithfulness, but it is not what it 
would have been had an Apostle been concerned in its composition. 

The second component of the external evidence for the Gospel 
consists of the apologetic development of the Elder’s testimony. It 
begins with Papias, and is probably based on a combination of I 
Pt. 5:13 with the testimony. If not due to Papias the combination 
is certainly made by Clement (who refers to Papias in making it) 
and by those who follow. The passage in question brings Mark into 
renewed relations with Peter toward the close of the Apostle’s life, 
and thus forms the starting-point for explanatory developments. 
The question is at once raised why the Apostle should in that case 
have permitted the defect noted by the Elder. Friction between 
new and old is already apparent. The two factors, criticism and 
apologetic, are in conflict. Hence explanations, one following an- 
other, but without new knowledge. 

The element of value in the apologetic development is limited to 
the New Testament passage on which it rests. If First Peter can be 
received as the actual writing of the Apostle it does imply actual 
contact between Mark and his spiritual father late in Peter’s life, 
and probably at Rome, here designated ‘‘Babylon.’’ The date would 
necessarily be limited to the brief time between the death of Paul 
and that of Peter ‘‘under Nero’’; for the attempt to displace this 
fixed point of primitive chronology collapses completely under criti- 


296 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


eal scrutiny. The supposition of renewed relations between Peter 
and Mark after Paul’s death is improbable. Even more improbable 
is the writing of First Peter shortly after the death of Paul by his 
companion Apostle without mention of Paul’s name. Disregarding 
such compromises as Harnack’s attempt to divide the Epistle by 
discarding as spurious the beginning and end (including 5:18), or 
suggestions of some other author (McGiffert: “‘Barnabas,’’ Zahn 
and others: ‘‘Silvanus’’), we are compelled to assume pseudo- 
nymity as the most probable explanation of the obscurities at the 
beginning and end of the writing. As Professor Ropes has recently 
said concerning the so-called Epistle of James, a writing but a few 
years later in date, 


The epistle has been assigned to many dates and several places of origin, 
and is held by many to be a genuine writing of James the Lord’s brother; 
but it is probably the pseudonymous production of a Christian of Jewish 
origin, living in Palestine in the last quarter of the first century or the first 
quarter of the second. 


What is here asserted with equal boldness and good judgment of 
the Epistle of James may be said, mutatis mutandis, of First Peter. 
It stands on a far higher level, both religiously and from a literary 
point of view, than the remainder of the numerous Petrine pseu- 
donyms, but cannot be taken as reflecting real historical conditions 
in 64-67 a.v. We may regard it as highly probable that Peter actu- 
ally was brought to Rome at about this date, carried away in bonds 
from the flock he had been serving (Jn. 21:18), like Ignatius a half- 
century later, to meet a martyr fate. This tradition is well estab- 
lished both as regards place and date, and the writer of First Peter 
doubtless builds upon it. But we are not warranted in assuming 
on this basis a contact between Peter and Mark such as would 
largely nullify the Elder’s testimony. Mark may have been in Rome 
at the time. It is likely to have been his headquarters for a period 
after the death of Paul. But the chance of his having had oppor- 
tunity to renew the association of his youth with Peter is too re- 
mote to serve for more than pious fancy in the Roman brother- 
hood a score of years after Peter’s death. We may probably infer 
from I Pt. 5:18 that Mark really remained connected with the 
Roman church for some time after Paul’s death, and that his early 
connection with Peter was an important and growing element in 
the authority attached to his teaching. Mark’s association with Paul 
is likely to have been the really determining factor in his religious 
convictions. But for a Church in whose eyes the figure of Peter 
was already beginning to assume almost superhuman importance 


| 
, 
y 





PETER’S DEPARTURE 297 


the predominant claim of Mark to be an interpreter of the sayings 
and doings of the Lord was that he had been spiritually the ‘‘son’’ 
of Peter. More than this cannot reasonably be inferred from the 
reference in I Pt. 5:18, except on the very improbable supposition 
of its derivation from Peter himself shortly before or after the 
martyrdom of Paul. 


CHAPTER XXII 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 


THE judgment of the second century on the Gospel of Mark ex- 
pressed in general terms was that it was indeed “‘according to 
Mark,’’ but post-apostolic. In endorsing the superscription ‘‘ Ac- 
cording to Mark’’ it expressed no opinion as to the closeness of 
Mark’s relation to the work, since the preposition xara was used in 
this connection in a very general way. It might imply personal 
authorship, as in the case of Matthew, or merely authorization, as 
in the case of the Gospel ‘‘according to’’ the Hebrews. In declaring 
the work post-apostolic the second-century fathers meant to place 
it in the period subsequent to the reign of Nero; for the martyr- 
dom of Peter and Paul ‘‘under Nero’’ was their accepted terminus 
for “‘the teaching of the Apostles.’’ They paid comparatively slight 
attention to the fall of Jerusalem. 

The Gospel seems to have been declared post-apostolic because of 
the nature, and more especially the arrangement, of its contents. 
Its ‘‘order’’ was judged, at first absolutely, later by comparison 
with Matthew, and found wanting. We have endeavored to show 
that this judgment was sound. Not, indeed, in its later form, by 
comparison with Matthew, but as originally intended. Notoriously 
the record does consist merely of a series of anecdotes, limited to 
the public ministry, usually assumed to cover a single year but 
without real chronology or relation to contemporary history, a mis- 
cellany of ‘‘sayings and doings of the Lord,”’ selected for purposes 
of edification rather than history, and strung together so loosely 
that events follow sometimes without sequence, sometimes in im- 
possible sequence, always in that sequence which was fitted to the 
religious and apologetic occasion (pos ras xpeias), rather than the 
chronological order. We may take the language of Loisy, one of the 
keenest of modern critics, as fairly stating the case from this point 
of view. 


Like every religious legend (that is, uncritical story) the oldest of the 
Gospels is a legend of miracle. But closely scrutinized this legend is re- 
markably meagre in material and in addition very badly put together. A 
few anecdotes badly connected, a few brief sayings. When the story appears 
to run in better sequence, as in the passion narrative, it is interrupted by 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 299 


secondary attachments. When the discourse is a little extended it turns 
out to be a compilation ill adapted to the circumstances described.* 


Critics of the second century (we do not say apologists) were no 
more blind to the nature of this miscellany than moderns. Unlike 
ourselves they had direct cognizance of other ‘‘narratives’’ (dmy7- 
ges), and “‘compilations of the precepts’’ (cwrdfeas tov Aoyiwv), such 
as our Gospels presuppose and embody. The earliest witness, the 
Elder, had also direct acquaintance with the still-flowing though 
turbid stream of oral tradition. In these respects ancient critics 
were better qualified than moderns. When, therefore, they char- 
acterize this Gospel as a post-apostolic miscellany of anecdotes from 
the story of the ministry, gathered from the preaching of Peter, 
but not so arranged as would have been the case had the Apostle 
himself been consulted (and such is the real purport of the testi- 
mony, apart from apologetic), modern criticism must confirm the 
judgment. 

The remaining question is whether modern criticism can go be- 
yond the mere interpretation and confirmation of ancient testi- 
mony, and draw further inferences of its own. How strictly should 
the ambiguous term “‘according to’’ be taken? How long was that 
indefinite interval covered by the expression ‘‘after the death of 
Peter and Paul?’’ These are questions for extreme nicety of judg- 
ment, allowing, therefore, of no dogmatic insistence. There are, 
however, certain phenomena of the contents and composition of the 
Gospel, covered already in a general way by our survey, which per- 
mit the drawing of inferences of some value. These must now be 
considered. The general nature, structure, contents, and composi- 
tion of the Gospel are sufficient to confirm the judgment of antiquity 
as to its post-apostolic origin. These, as already examined, are suffi- 
cient to prove that it was not put together during Paul’s lifetime, 
when the greater part of a body of ‘‘more than five-hundred’’ eye- 
witnesses were still living in Jerusalem (I Cor. 15:6), nor yet 
merely after the death of Peter, but (in accordance with the 
grounds rather than the mere language of the ancient criticism) 
after the testimony of apostolic witnesses had ceased to be ob- 
tainable. The Gospel must be dated later than the reign of Nero. 
The question now is, How much later? Inferences not attempted 
by the ancients can be drawn (1) from the historical and geo- 
graphical standpoint of the writer; (2) from his eschatology; (3) 
from his relation, and that of his sources, to the teaching of Paul; 
_1Joseph Klausner, a Jew writing a Jewish Life of Christ in Jerusalem in 
Hebrew under the title Jeshu ha-Notzir (1922), regards this mode of writing 
as typically Jewish. Book IV, p. 271. 


300 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


(4) from the relation of his resurrection narrative, fragmentary as 
it now is, to the apostolic resurrection gospel reported by Paul in 
I Cor. 15:1-11 as that preached not only by himself, but by all 
the rest of the authorized witnesses. In the present chapter we may 
limit ourselves to the first of these lines of evidence, which bears 
more directly on questions of authorship than of date. 

The ‘‘graphiec style’’ of Mark is often adduced as proof of his 
nearness to the events he narrates, and it is true that as compared 
with Matthew and Luke more attention is paid to scene-painting. 
The attitude of Jesus, the glance of his eye, are used to larger ex- 
tent than by the later Synoptists to emphasize the teaching and 
bring out its real bearing (3:5, 34; 6:6; 8:12; 10:21; but cf. Mk. 
22:61). Where the evangelist seems to have symbolism in view, or a 
didactic purpose, he dwells upon some of the attendant circum- 
stances of the healings or other incidents to greater extent than his 
transcribers. This is particularly noticeable where he wishes to 
make apparent Jesus’ power over the demons, and their recognition 
of him as the Son of God (1:21 ff., 34; 5: 1-20); also when the 
healing tends to illustrate the slow awakening of Israel to percep- 
tion of the truth, as prophesied by Isaiah (7: 31-37; 8: 22-26; 9: 
14-29 ; 10: 46-52). Comparison particularly of the two healings of 
the dumb and blind with Q parallels (Mt. 9: 27-34; 12: 22—Lk. 
11:14), with due regard to linguistic phenomena, will make it 
practically certain that in this instance at least the greater elabora- 
tion of Mark represents an attempt to bring out a lesson based on 
Is. 29: 18 ff., rather than historical presentation of the event. On the 
other hand the comparison of the ‘‘eating-companies’’ (cvp7dcua) 
seated in order in their gay-colored Eastern garments on the 
‘‘oreen’’ grass to “‘garden-beds’’ (zpacta) is justly referred by 
the many commentators who call attention to it to pure delight in 
scene-painting. The evangelist sees the picture himself, and ap- 
preciates the pleasure his readers will take in the reproduction of 
it. Matthew and Luke omit the ‘‘garden-beds,’’ just as they also 
disregard Mark’s comparison of the shining garments of Jesus in 
the Transfiguration scene to the work of ‘‘fullers on earth.’’ In 
comparison with Matthew and Luke Mark is “‘graphic.’’ But, as 
Wernle justly remarks, the characteristic belongs to the period 
rather than to the person. With the Gospel of Mark we stand 
nearer the time when freedom of descriptive detail was still permis- 
sible on the part of the narrator, and was welcomed by the audience. 
It does not require that one should have sat among the ‘‘eating- 
companies’’ in Galilee (as admittedly Mark did not) to know how an 
outdoor group of Christians looks assembled for such a purpose on a 





INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 301 


green hillside. Neither does it require that one have been a com- 
panion of Apostles to know how ‘demoniacs’ behave under the word 
of the exorciser, or how paralytics and other afflicted people re- 
ceive the healing act or word of the messenger of glad tidings. If 
one has spent a lifetime in ‘‘doing the work of an evangelist’’ such 
scenes are not difficult to reproduce. As regards references to the 
look and gesture of Jesus, the omissions of Matthew and Luke are 
admittedly due, in most cases ‘if not all, to their greater sense of 
reverence. Expressions indicative of anger or surprise (‘‘He looked 
around with anger,’’ ‘“He was amazed at their unbelief’’) are no 
longer considered in good taste as applied to Jesus in the period 
of Matthew and Luke. In the time of Mark the objection was less 
felt. . 

It is true, then, that the ‘‘graphic style’’ of Mark has something 
to tell regarding the date of composition, but far less than is com- 
monly assumed. It has little, if any, bearing on the evangelist’s 
relation to the eye-witnesses; much more on the feeling prevalent 
in his period and environment determining what is appropriate in 
gospel-story. It belongs with the disregard evinced by Mark, as 
compared with Matthew and Luke, for teaching material. Mark 
appeals to the eye rather than the ear. He still has something of 
the instinct of Paul that ‘‘the gospel’’ is not new and better ‘‘com- 
mandments,’’ but the story of what God wrought ‘“‘through the 
agency of Christ.’’ 

Over against Mark’s (relatively) graphic style stands a double 
objection to the plea of the apologist. The objection is based partly 
on things not told, partly on things told otherwise than we should 
expect on the assumption of a close relation of the author to 
apostolic times or witnesses. 

Recent linguistic study, proving that the Gospel consists not so 
much of the personal pen-work of the evangelist as of translations 
from collected documents, makes larger allowance possible for the 
non-appearance of those individual and personal reminiscences 
which we should expect if the ascription to Mark were taken in the 
strictest sense. But the very use of documents to the exclusion of 
personal recollection is evidential. And if Mark himself had any 
direct and personal share in the composition, it is hard to under- 
stand why so little appears (even in editorial matter) of what must 
have been well known to one brought up in the house of Mary in 
Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Had Mark never met Andrew, Peter’s 
brother? Could he tell nothing whatever about James the Lord’s 
brother, or about Mary, his mother? If he knew James and John, 
the sons of Zebedee, why has he nothing whatever to tell about the 


302 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


former, nothing about the latter save that he incurred Jesus’ rebuke 
for voicing the intolerance of the Twelve (9:38 f.)? Why has he 
nothing to tell about the pair save the sobriquet Boanerges (which 
he renders ‘‘Sons of Thunder,’’ but without explaining its applica- 
tion), and the martyr fate which befell them according to the pre- 
diction of Jesus? Why has he nothing to tell about Peter himself 
of any personal character, and nothing at all about the rest of the 
Twelve, some of whom must have frequented his mother’s house 
during those twelve years while it was still their headquarters? 

One may reasonably supplement the statement of Acts 12:12 as 
to the close relations of Mark with the primitive apostolic circle by 
a conjecture based on Acts 13:13 and 15: 37 ff. in combination with. 
Gal. 2:11. Before the close of the First Missionary Journey Mark 
‘‘withdrew’’ from Paul and Barnabas at Perga in Pamphylia and 
returned to Jerusalem. Acts does not tell us how he next comes to 
be at Antioch, whence he goes with Barnabas to Cyprus. But from 
Galatians we learn that Peter in the meantime came from Jeru- 
salem to Antioch, so that Mark’s coming is likely to have been in 
company with Peter. From this time on Mark was associated with 
Barnabas until he rejoined Paul at Rome (Col. 4:10).2 We have 
seen how slight ground exists for supposing him to have again come 
into real contact with Peter. But contact with Barnabas, one of the 
original apostolic group (Acts 4:36), must count for something. 
First and last, then, the son of Mary of Jerusalem and cousin of 
Barnabas must have enjoyed unusual knowledge of the eye-wit- 
nesses and their story. 

But the amount of evidence for personal contact with this group 
afforded by the Gospel before us is so small as to make it difficult, 
if not impossible, to take the expression ‘‘according to’’ in the 
stricter sense. Advocates of this interpretation point to the incident 
of the nameless young man (veavioxos) who fled from the scene of 
arrest in Gethsemane after the posse led by Judas had torn the 
sheet from his body (Mk. 14:51 f.). They call it poetically ‘‘the 
artist’s signature in an obscure corner of the canvass.’’ But a 
signature makes at least the suggestion of a name. No name is here 
suggested. It is possible to suppose a time when the refererice was 
understood. Those to whom the names Alexander and Rufus (15: 
21) were familiar may have understood this reference also. But we 

2 In view of a disposition in some quarters to refer the Epistles of Imprison- 
ment in which mention is made of Mark’s coming to Asia to an (otherwise 
unknown) imprisonment in Ephesus mention should be made especially of 


II Tim., 4: 9-12, according to Harrison (Problem of Pastoral Epistles, 1921, 
p- 123) part of Paul’s farewell letter from Rome. 





INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 303 


have no reason to suppose the author of the Gospel intended the 
anecdote to call attention to his own participation in these scenes. 
Had he so desired it was perfectly open to him to state the fact as 
plainly as it is asserted in Rev. 22:8, or, if he preferred, as ob- 
scurely as in Jn. 19:35. We have not even the latter. There is 
nothing whatever to connect the incident with the writing of the 
Gospel. Ancient conjecture, busy (like modern) with romantic 
identifications, declared the young man to have been ‘‘John.’’ If 
this was in reality ‘‘John whose surname was Mark’’ the mode of 
reference would be much more in favor of the looser interpretation 
of the term ‘‘according to’’ than the stricter. The evangelist would 
in that case be reminding readers familiar with the name of ‘‘John”’ 
(current, it would seem, in Palestine rather than the Greek-speak- 
ing world, Acts 12:25; 13:13) of an incident attached in local 
tradition to it. His own personality would at the same time be 
suitably kept out of sight. 

The evangelist’s seeming remoteness from the group who must 
have been personally known to Mark and are actually mentioned 
in the Gospel, though for the most part only named, is an objection 
of weight. But it need not be carried to the extent of expecting 
familiarity with the personality of Jesus. Even if we take the 
Gethsemane incident as really an experience of the evangelist him- 
self, it should not perhaps be expected that after forty years of 
missionary preaching in the wake of Paul the ‘‘youth’’ who was 
thus for a moment brought into real contact with the Redeemer 
himself would be led by it alone to depict any less superhuman 
figure than that actually portrayed in the Gospel. But surely it is 
reasonable to expect that a resident for many years of Jerusalem 
would be familiar with the geography of the country, and at least 
the political conditions of his own times. We should not expect him 
to commit the blunders concerning Antipas and his relations with 
Herodias, Salome her daughter, and John the Baptist, which char- 
acterize the story of the Baptist’s Fate (6:17-29). We should not 
expect him to ascribe to ‘‘the Pharisees and all the Jews’’ the pre- 
cautions against ritual defilement described in 7:3 f. We should not 
expect him to ascribe the plots against Jesus’ life to a conspiracy 
of the Pharisees with ‘‘the Herodians.’’ We should not expect him 
to speak of Gerasa as if it were a city on the east shore of the Sea 
of Galilee; nor to describe a journey from the scene of the Feeding 
of the Five Thousand to ‘‘Bethsaida’’ as going to ‘‘the other side’’ 
of the Lake (6:45) ; nor to speak of Bethsaida itself as a ‘‘village’’ 
(xopn, 8:26). We scarcely know what to make of a journey ‘‘from 
the borders of Tyre through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, up the 


304 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


midst of the borders of Decapolis’’ (7:31), even if there be some 
prospect of understanding one “‘into the borders of Judaea and 
beyond Jordan’’ (10:1) on the way to Jerusalem, and a possibility 
that a “‘Dalmanutha’’ may sometime be discovered near Gennesaret. 
There may have been a “‘Bethany”’ as well as a Bethphage on the 
Mount of Olives (11: 1),° and ultimately it may turn cut that “‘the 
village over against you’’ was this Bethphage, so that ‘‘Bethany’’ 
only came in through some early correction to disturb the context 
and perplex the geographer. But even if all these historical and 
geographical puzzles were cleared up it would still be surprising 
that a resident of Jerusalem from boyhood to maturity should not 


be able to convey a clearer idea of the journeys he wished to de-. 


scribe, or the historical conditions of his own time. 

Expectation, in all the above cases, depends upon a knowledge 
which is limited and subject to error. If we knew more about the 
geography and history of contemporary Palestine some of the above 
puzzles would undoubtedly cease to exist (though perhaps as many 
new ones would arise). Some of them, such as the situation of 
Gerasa, are not likely to be dissipated by any amount of increase 
of geographical and historical knowledge. We must reason by the 
knowledge which we have, making due allowance for the possibility 
(or even in some cases probability) of error on our own part. Judg- 
ing by such knowledge as we have, there are very serious difficulties 
in the way of supposing the evangelist himself to have been a resi- 
dent of Palestine during the years. 30-42. 

With all due allowance for the possible breaking forth of new 
light, the critic is bound to acknowledge the failure of the Gospel 


of Mark to meet his expectations (as reasonable as he knows how _ 


to make them) of a document of such authorship. The author em- 
phatically does not seem to stand in close, warm, and intimate rela- 
tions with either the individuals, the scenes, or the events of his 
story. To him the mother and brethren of Jesus seem to be bare 


names. Absolutely all that he has to tell about them is their opposi- 


tion and unbelief (3:21, 31f.; 6:4). The Apostles are scarcely 
more. With the exceptions already noted all are passed over in 
complete silence. Concerning the leaders there is more than silence. 
There is almost a tone of hostility. The Son of David Christology, 
still a living hope among the ‘‘many myriads’’ of believers of 
Jewish birth when James at the Apostolic Council makes his appeal 


3 Since the above was written Director Albright of the American School of 
Oriental Research in Jerusalem has shown evidence for its identification with 
(Beth) Ananiah of Neh. 11: 32, a ruined village one-half hour’s walk from 
Jerusalem on the east slope of the Mount of Olives. Annual, Vol. IV, pp. 158-160. 


| 
: 





INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 305 


to the prophecy of Amos (Acts 15: 16-18), still the bond of loyalty 
which held together the little Christian caliphate in Jerusalem as 
long as there were members of the kindred of the Lord (deorécvvor) 
to stand at its head, is to our evangelist a Christology ‘‘according 
to the things of men.’’ It rests upon a Jewish delusion inspired by 
Satan (8:33; 12: 35-37). All the Twelve are infected with this 
Jewish stubbornness and callousness (6:52; 7:18; 8:17 f.). It 
meets with scorching rebuke from Jesus when voiced by Peter at 
Caesarea Philippi (8: 31-33), but is not yet eradicated. Each new 
prediction of the cross is followed by a new demonstration on the 
part of the Twelve, as a group and individually, that they still 
cherish selfish and unworthy ambitions (10: 28 ff., 35 ff.), and they 
show no sign of a change of mind down to their desertion of their 
Master, and the denial of him by Peter before the slaves and maid- 
servant of the high priest. If there were a.single incident recorded, 
whether of Peter or any other of the Apostles, or a single word 
were said of Jesus’ mother and brethren, to relieve the evangelist’s 
portraiture of its most sinister features, or to place the characters 
in a more favorable light, we should receive a different impression 
of his attitude. But there is none. Of course the story in its earliest 
‘ form, supplied with its original ending, reported at least the turn- 
ing again of Peter, perhaps the stablishing of his brethren (14: 
27 f.). But it is the mutilated Gospel, deprived of this mitigation of 
its hostile attitude toward the Jerusalem group, with which we have 
to do. It is this form which actually circulated at the time when 
Luke and Matthew were written. It is hard to suppose that Mark, 
who during all the years of his youth formed one of this Jerusalem 
circle, knew the mother and brethren of Jesus who formed its 
nucleus and James its venerated head, and who went in and out 
among the Apostles, its official representatives, could have depicted 
them in colors so unrelieved. Even if we acquit the original evangel- 
ist of responsibility for the removal of the story how Jesus appeared 
to ‘‘Peter and’’ the eleven in Galilee, restoring right relations be- 
tween himself and them, his general attitude toward the mother 
and brethren of Jesus is nothing less than hostile. Even toward the 
Apostles, particularly Peter, James, and John, he displays an atti- 
tude hard to impute to Peter’s spiritual ‘‘son.’’ 

The historical geography of Palestine must decide as to the 
evangelist’s acquaintance with scenes which must have been familiar 
to one whose youth was spent as a resident of that tiny district, 
easily covered from end to end in a few days’ journey on foot. Our 
knowledge is limited. But it suffices to enable us to say of the writer 
of Jn. 4:3 ff., 5:1 ff., 10: 22 f. that he had probably made at least 


306 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


the journey from Jerusalem through Samaria to Galilee. One can 
hardly say as much for the whole Gospel of Mark. If the compiler 
had ever visited the country with which his sources deal he gives 
no indication of it. On the contrary he is clearly wrong in some of 
his geographical suppositions, and appears to be at fault as respects 
a number of data both historical and geographical such as we have 
enumerated. For him Palestinian Christians are “‘they that are in 
Judaea’’ (18:14). 

During the twelve years in Jerusalem from the crucifixion to the 
exodus of the Twelve the historical John Mark must have heard 
again and again the story of the crucifixion from those who had 
personally witnessed the tragedy. He must have constantly visited 
the scene, and found vivid interest in making every detail of the 
story of cross and resurrection live again. Surely for such a witness 
the story given in Mk. 15: 22-41 is inexplicably meagre. Such de- 
tails as are given, including the rending of the temple veil, are not 
free from the atmosphere of legend, or owe their narration to the 
apologetic interest of Scripture fulfilment. There is little echo, or 
none, of that anguish of despair which must have filled the hearts 
of those from whom Mark heard the story. Religious edification is 
the motive in view. Personal feeling has almost disappeared. 

On the other hand there are scenes which could not well have 
other ultimate origin than the personal narration of Peter. Such 
are the opening story of the Call of the Four Fishermen (1: 16-20) 
and the Beginning of Miracles in Capernaum (1: 21-39). Such also 
is the scene of Gethsemane and Peter’s Denial (14: 32-50, 66-72). 
Those who gave this work the title ‘‘ Reminiscences of Peter’’ were 
well advised. Only it must not be supposed that it contained noth- 
ing else, or that it reproduced even these in the precise form given 
them by the Apostle. For side by side with narratives of this real- 
istic type stand others, sometimes such as use the same incident, 
whose character is anything but historically realistic. Peter’s Con- 
fession at Caesarea Philippi surely goes back to the testimony of 
eye- and ear-witnesses for its essential data. But the Revelation of 
Peter which follows and interprets this scene, the interjected story 
of the Transfiguration (9: 2-10), is a bit of Jewish-christian mid- 
rash of which the motive and significance must be sought in Paul’s 
defence of the ministry of the New Covenant in II Cor. 3: 1-6: 10. 

For such a combination of history and legend, realistic story and 
religious elaboration, there can be but one explanation. It is that 
afforded by documentary analysis. We are compelled to admit the 
justice of the primitive claim to Peter’s testimony in this compila- 
tion. But we are equally compelled, by the very same evidence, to 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 307 


deny that this covers the whole. We have neither wish nor ground 
for rejecting the ancient witness for the authority of Mark as guar- 
anteeing the general authenticity of this Gospel. But the phenomena 
we have just reviewed compel us to take the expression ‘‘ according 
to’’ (xaré) in the looser sefise. This Gospel represents the story of 
Peter, not as recorded, but as it used to be preached, by Mark. 

The linguistic proof that the Gospel consists of documentary 
sources, not of oral testimony set down by a single hand, comes as 
a relief to those who are reluctant to discredit the ancient tradition 
of Markan origin. Such a work of translation and compilation of 
written sources gives larger room for explanation of the apparent 
remoteness of the compiler from the eye-witnesses. To hold Mark 
personally responsible for everything consigned to these pages is to 
place a strain upon the Elder’s testimony that he ‘‘ wrote carefully 
(axpeBos) all that he remembered’’ which the internal evidence will 
scarcely justify. To hold that the collection, translation, and editing 
of these Petrine reminiscences of the sayings and doings of the 
Lord, was done ‘‘carefully,’’ in loyal effort to omit nothing that 
Mark would have included, and to set down nothing falsely, is no 
more than just to the indications of the work itself. In this sense 
we may well retain the ancient title ‘‘ According to Mark.”’ 


CHAPTER XXIII 
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DATE 


THE Eschatological Discourse of Mk. 13 has been declared to fur- 
nish the ‘‘one decisive mark of time in the Gospel itself.’’ We have 
examined this agglutination and found that it does indeed have 
reference, as critics have generally maintained, to the catastrophe 
of the Jewish War, ending with the overthrow of Jerusalem. For 
the compiler the ‘‘great tribulation’’ of 66-70 is, as Wellhausen 
puts it, “‘a past event’’ (bereits vergangen). His interest is con- 
centrated on certain dangers to the Church arising from the after- 
throes of the rebellion. 

The Eschatological Discourse combines Q material with a Little 
Apocalypse based on Daniel. The Little Apocalypse was not an 
utterance of Jesus in the flesh, but substantially the same utterance 
through some unknown Christian prophet of the great crisis of 40 
A.D. which underlies the Thessalonian Epistles, and is cited by Paul 
as ‘‘a word of the Lord.’’ In the Thessalonian Epistles this apoca- 
lypse has already been adapted to the changed conditions of the 
year 50; for it substitutes a personal ‘‘Man of Sin’’ for the 1m- 
personal Abomination (shigqutz) of Daniel. In Mark it retains this 
Pauline feature, but shows traces of new and further adaptation. 
The evangelist now seeks adjustment to conditions as they were 
after the year 70 by a change affecting the locality. Mk. 13:14 
substitutes the indefinite ‘‘where he ought not’’ for ‘‘the temple of 
God’’ as the scene of the Satanic manifestation. Thus the Pauline 
apocalypse, the Book of Daniel on which it had been founded when 
uttered as “‘a word of the Lord,’’ and certain logia from the Second 
Source are the three elements which have been combined in Mark’s 
discourse. These component factors, taken together with the edi- 
torial adaptation of the whole to the situation as it was after 70 A.D. 
do indeed furnish a decisive mark of time. They compel us to date 
the Gospel after the ‘‘great tribulation on those that are in 
Judea,’’ thus removing entirely that lower limit of date which 
modern critics had fondly imagined themselves able to set over 
against the higher limit established by the testimony of antiquity: 
“‘after the death of Peter and Paul.’’ The date is certainly later 
than 70 A.D. 

Comparison of the Matthean form of the Eschatological Dis- 





or 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DATE 309 


course furnishes no escape from the conclusions drawn. Mark is 
less definite, minute, and specific than Matthew in his expectation 
of the fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel. In fact he does not 
mention Daniel the prophet by name at all. His whole object in 
constructing the discourse is different. Matthew wishes to encourage 
a fading hope of the Parousia by a new interpretation of Daniel 
the prophet which will show that the profanation to be expected 
before the ‘‘full end’’ (Dan. 9:27) is neither a manifestation of 
Beliar (as Mark understands), nor a desecration of the temple like 
that of Antiochus, but simply that desecration of a synagogue in 
Caesarea which started the great tribulation on those in Judea. 
Consequently the full end, not to be expected till after the destruc- 
tion of the city and the sanctuary (Dan.'9: 26), cannot be far off. 
Seventy weeks from Daniel’s time had been decreed upon the 
people of God and the holy city 


to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconcilia- 
tion for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up 
vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (Dan. 9: 24). 


What Christian of Matthew’s time could hold that this prediction 
was not still a matter of future fulfilment? The seventy weeks were 
an enigma calling continually for new solutions. But Christian 
apocalypse, from Revelation down, is full of attempts to solve it. 
Matthew either had his own solution, or expected one would be 
found. He desires to hearten the discouragement of the long years 
of waiting by new assurances like those of his contemporary at 
Ephesus that the time of the Coming is at hand. Jesus will come 
quickly. The years of the great tribulation ‘“among the Gentiles’’ 
have been long, but will soon be at an end. This is such doctrine as 
one might expect from Christians in Palestine (Galilee?) in the end 
of the reign of Domitian. 

Mark has quite a different tone and aim. The burden of his mes- 
sage is a warning like that of Paul to the troubled brotherhood 
at Thessalonica. Mark is not less definite than Matthew in his refer- 
ences to ‘‘the great tribulation on those that were in Judea.’’ But 
the lesson that he draws is not encouragement to hope that the full 
end predicted by Daniel is near. It is rather warning not to be 
carried away by the fanaticism of false prophets and false Christs. 

This, too, as we have pointed out, is an indication of date. Mark 
certainly does look back on the destruction of Jerusalem as already 
an event of the past. But there are events of the present which he 
regards as of still greater concern. Chief among these, at least for 
‘‘those that are in Judea,’’ is the appearance of the ‘‘false prophets 


310 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


and false Christs’’ as part of the aftermath of the great war. Un- 
fortunately we have no definite and specific information to tell us 
precisely what phenomenon is meant. The political agitations in 
Egypt and Cyrene which Josephus describes (War, VII, xi.) will 
have had their religious counterpart among Jewish-christian com- 
munities embued with the apocalyptic hopes so well known to us 
in the literature of this type. It may well have extended more 
widely still. In the Commentary the year 75 has been set as a not 
improbable date for the composition of the Gospel of Mark. From 
the special interest of the Eschatological Discourse this would be 
an appropriate time. Five years is a short period to allow for the 
development of the post-war phenomena and the reaction evoked 
from Christians in the West. 

The testimony of antiquity as to the post-apostolic origin of Mark 
is thus positively confirmed. The internal evidence compels us to 
date it at a time when the testimony of the eye-witnesses was no 
longer available, the age of the Apostles’ teaching not having ex- 
tended beyond ‘‘the reign of Nero.’’ But almost a score of years 
after the overthrow of Jerusalem now lies open to choice. The ad- 
mitted dependence of Luke and Matthew furnishes the only secure 
lower limit, so that this might be placed almost anywhere in the 
last quarter of the first century. 

The post-apostolic date thus witnessed by antiquity for the Gos- 
pel of Mark and confirmed by its adaptations of the Little Apoca- 
lypse is corroborated by other phenomena of the internal evidence. 
Without conclusive proof of literary borrowing we have found 
enough to show that the evangelist himself had been affected by the 
teaching of Paul. Even were one unconvinced of this, some of the 
material employed has even stronger Pauline coloration than the 
Gospel itself. Both as regards selection of material, sources, and 
composition, and development of doctrine, the period after Paul 
was found far more probable than one contemporary with his ac- 
tivity, the earlier time being excluded altogether. The evangelist 
incorporates as his chief dependence material which should be called 
deutero-Petrine rather than Petrine. The work is an elaborate com- 
pilation from written sources originally Aramaic, by a compiler 
somewhat remote from the scenes, events, and persons described. 
This prevailing character of the work should count for more than 
specific instances subject to dispute such as the reference to the 
martyrdom of James and John (the latter probably contemporary 
with that of James the Lord’s brother in 62 a.p.), which Well- 
hausen considered to stand next in importance to the Eschatological 
Discourse as a mark of time. Other slighter indications which need 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DATE 311 


not be here enumerated go to support the conclusion based (it 
would seem) by antiquity on the general character and structure 
of the work. 

On the other hand individual traits in the composition are un- 
doubtedly early. Some scenes bear the impress of first-hand report, 
in all probability that of Peter. But the Gospel consists of a com- 
pilation of earlier documents. Such is the most convincing result 
of the recent studies of its “‘translation Greek,’’ to say nothing of 
previous source analysis. That some elements from oral or written 
tradition should retain an archaic character, however late the com- 
pilation as a whole, would be only what we should expect. It is the 
latest elements which determine the date. 

Among these determinative later elements of the Gospel of Mark 
is one which in our judgment deserves far more serious considera- 
tion than it has yet received. The climax toward which the whole 
story moves is that mutilated closing section which may be desig- 
nated the Resurrection gospel, and begins with the story of the 
women who witness the entombment from afar off (15:40 ff.), re- 
turning after the Sabbath was past to find the stone rolled away, 
and to receive a message from a “‘young man”’ sitting within ‘‘on 
the right hand,”’ to tell his disciples and Peter that the risen Christ 
will meet them in Galilee. 

If we encroach upon the history of textual transmission this can- 
not indeed be said to belong to the very latest elements of the Gos- 
pel. For at some period after it left the author’s hands, but so early 
as to have left no trace of his own words of conclusion, this resur- 
rection story was broken off. Our oldest witnesses for the text 
agree with the inferences a just criticism must make from Luke 
and Matthew, that the Gospel circulated for a period entirely with- 
out a proper ending. The Vaticanus, the Sinaitic Codex, the Sinaitic 
Syriac, concur with the later Synoptics to show that from the time 
when it was used by Luke and Matthew the Gospel of Mark ended 
with the words ‘‘for they were afraid’’ (¢¢oPotvro ydp), giving no ac- 
count of the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus (14:27 f.), leaving 
the reader uninformed even of what happened after the corrobora- 
tory assurance of the angel. Later transcribers supply the obvious 
defect in different ways, one group of manuscripts attaching what 
is called the Longer ending, a summary of the appearances re- 
lated in Jn. 20:11 ff. and Lk. 24: 18-53, another adding as an al- 
ternative a Shorter Ending based on Mt. 28: 16-20. The chief value 
of these for our present purposes is their demonstration that the 
. ancients felt as keenly as ourselves the necessity of filling an obvi- 


ous lacuna. 


312 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


But our enquiry concerns the period antecedent to these vicissi- 
tudes of the transmission of the text. We may properly raise the 
question why the original author’s ending has not survived, sinee 
even accident (the resort of those who abandon the attempt at ex- 
planation) cannot account for the disappearance of the tradition 
from which the author drew. And we must still continue to reckon 
the Resurrection narrative of Mk. 15: 40-16: 8 among the later, if 
not the very latest, elements of the original text. The closing words, 
explaining why the women failed to deliver the message confided 
to them, either to the disciples or anyone else, convey a decided 
hint that the story had not been in circulation from the beginning, 
but is now given currency on the basis of some authority not speci- 
fied. The reader is left to conjecture that subsequently, after the 
fact of the resurrection had become known, the women came for- 
ward to corroborate the witness of others by relating their experi- 
ence, but the time of their thus breaking silence is not indicated. 

The Ev. Petri still preserves this complete independence of the 
story of the women from the appearance to the Eleven. The disciples 
are hiding in Jerusalem. Here also this seems to be impliedy for 
the angel’s message directs them to Galilee. The women are not sent 
to Galilee, but to the refuge of the Eleven in Jerusalem to bid them 
go to Galilee. But in Hv. Petri, as in Mark, the message remains 
undelivered. The appearance in Galilee takes by complete surprise 
the group who experience it (the fragment breaks off after enumer- 
ating “‘ Andrew’’ and ‘‘Levi son of Alpheus’’ as Peter’s companions 
at the Sea of Galilee). Attempts of later apologists to arrange some 
sort of harmony between these two unrelated traditions, that of the 
women in Jerusalem and the disciples in Galilee, are well illus- 
trated in Mt. 28:8 (‘‘ran to bring his disciples word’’), 9 f. (see- 
ond message through the women), Lk. 24:10 f. (the message de- 
livered but disbelieved), Jn. 20: 1-10 (believed only by ‘‘the disciple 
whom Jesus loved’’). We have conflict between traditions, geo- 
graphically as between Galilee (Matthean and Markan) and Jeru- 
salem (Luke and Jn. 1-20), chronologically as between the mani- 
festation to the women ‘‘on the third day’’ and the manifestation 
to Peter (in Galilee), which could only presuppose resurrection 
“‘on the third day’’ as something required by “‘Seripture’’ (I Cor. 
15:3), the manifestation itself being necessarily later. These may 
well account for the mutilation of Mark, or at least for the hesita- 

1 According to Hv, Petri, XIV, 58, at the end of the days of unleavened 


bread, hence some days after the crucifixion; cf. Acts 1:3 (‘‘forty days’’) 
and 2:1 (Pentecost). 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DATE 313 


tion in supplying the defect. Phe our present enquiry is directed to 
something else. 

The critic may find it necessary to presuppose an earlier form of 
the Petrine resurrection gospel represented in Mark which paid no 
attention to the story of the Women at the Sepulchre. As already 
noted the two narratives, representing Galilee and Jerusalem re- 
spectively, are certainly quite independent in origin, and were 
found far from easy to adjust by primitive apologists forced to 
meet the counter-arguments of the ‘Synagogue. It is scarcely natural 
that the witness of an angel from. een should be invoked to 
bring about the situation presupposed as a result of the smiting of 
the Shepherd in 14: 27 f., and still less natural that this interven- 
tion from heaven should prove after all fruitless. In the Commen- 
tary, accordingly, it is inferred that the Roman tradition in its 
earliest form followed accounts of the Galilean type. The first 
manifestation occurs in Galilee, far from the scene of the tragedy, 
far from the tomb, far from the place where the new movement of 
evangelization was to begin, for the simple reason that Peter and 
the rest of the Eleven had fled thither, and could not be reached 
otherwise. 

Resurrection narratives of the Galilean type require very little 
adjustment to Paul’s list of the proofs in I Cor. 15: 1-11, for Paul 
gives no geographical data. Accounts which follow the Jerusalem 
tradition, eliminating altogether the inconvenient scattering of the 
disciples and flight to Galilee, or prefixing a manifestation to other 
witnesses, are certainly secondary developments. 

Of this later date for the form of the tradition represented in 
Mark we have two decisive proofs: (1) The a priori unlikelihood 
of a journey from Jerusalem to Galilee, followed by almost immedi- 
ate return, without other explicable motive than to receive a mani- 
festation of the risen Savior. The most natural scene for the mani- . 
festations would be near the tomb. It is incredible that a journey to 
Galilee should be an invention of the tradition. Its origin is the 
real fact of the flight, as already explained. Its removal (as in 
Luke), or displacement to a secondary position (as in Mark), is a 
natural result of simplification combined with the desire to obliter- 
ate the memory of events discreditable to the Twelve. (2) We have 
also the plain statement of Paul, enumerating the successive steps 
of demonstration by which the witnesses were brought to their 
conviction of Jesus’ triumph over death. It is expressly stated to be 
the common resurrection gospel, not peculiar to Paul (‘‘whether it 
- were I or they, so we preached, and so ye believed’’), but a tradi- 
tion common to all from the beginning. This common apostolic 


314 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


resurrection gospel begins with the manifestation to Peter (in 
Galilee), and makes no allusion of any sort to the women or the 
empty tomb. As Paul’s argument is chiefly concerned with the 
resurrection body (‘‘with what body do they come?’’), this Apostle 
naturally refers to the burial of Jesus’ body (15:4). But so far 
from referring to its disappearance from the tomb on the third 
day, which would have been a shattering argument against his op- 
ponents, Paul merely adduces the parallel of the decay of the seed- 
corn in the earth, to be followed at ‘‘First-fruits’’ by a new body. 
The new is like the old, but related to it only by some divine al- 
chemy beyond man’s power to comprehend (Phil. 3:21; Rom. 8: 
11; If Cor. 3:18). The inherently secondary nature of the Jeru- 
salem tradition of the women at the empty tomb, combined with its 
complete exclusion from the apostolic resurrection gospel as re- 
ported by Paul, make it certain that the narrative of Mk. 15: 40- 
16:8 is relatively late. 

Criticism now points to Mk. 14:27 f. as not in harmony with 
16:7, where the Twelve are not ‘‘scattered abroad,’’ and demands 
that we recognize a trace here of the older account. Other ancient 
forms of the tradition such as Jn. 21:2 and Ev. Petri XIV, 59 f.? 
support this “‘scattering,’’ to the extent of making the group asso- 
ciated with Peter at the first manifestation a different one from the 
Eleven. There seems, therefore, to be no escape from recognizing 
the difference, and we must also admit the priority of the form 
which includes a ‘‘scattering’’ of the Twelve, though one need not 
necessarily admit that the promise inserted in Mk. 14:28 and re- 
ferred to by the angel in 16:7 is original in the context. All that 
here concerns us is the recognition that in the Gospel of Mark as 
it stands these two forms of the tradition, an earlier and a later, are 
set side by side unreconciled, and that the tradition which now 
occupies the dominant place in the Gospel is one of which the ancient 
resurrection gospel reported in I Cor. 15:1-11 has no knowledge 
at all. 

In attempting to date the Gospel of Mark as it stands, disre- 
garding the various Endings attached since the time of origin of 
Luke and Matthew, we must therefore take account of the gradual 
displacement of the apostolic resurrection gospel, which began with 
the manifestation ‘‘to Peter,’’ by the secondary form, which gave 
first place to the story of the Women at the Sepulchre. One can 


2“* We the twelve disciples of the Lord . . . separated every man to his own 
house (cf. Jn, 16: 32). But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew, my brother, taking 
our nets went away to the sea, and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, 
whom the Lord. . .’’ 


INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DATE 315 


imagine that a resurrection gospel which had the combined au- 
thority of Paul and all the other eye-witnesses, and which began 
with the appearance ‘‘to Peter,’’ was not easily displaced. Cer- 
tainly such a displacement could not be imagined to occur during 
the lifetime of Peter and Paul, nor could it easily take place while 
the church in Jerusalem could still furnish hundreds of eye-wit- 
nesses (I Cor. 15:6). The scattering of this primitive body of wit- 
nesses and the death of those who could readily have supplied the 
kind of narrative Paul gives, would seem to be a conditio sine qua 
non of the account actually set forth in Mk. 15: 40-16: 8. 

The critic may conjecture such an origin as he pleases for the 
story of the Empty Tomb. It is unquestionably derived from Jeru- 
salem. The description of the tomb and the local (not to say hagio- 
graphic) interest in the spot pointed out by the angel (‘‘behold the 
place where they laid him’’) are sufficient to indicate its prove- 
nance. The names of the women witnesses and of Joseph of Arima- 
thea, strange otherwise to Mark, corroborate this Jerusalem prove- 
nance, and in addition suggest a connection with the Special Source 
of Luke. An interest (not shared by Mark) in fulfilment of the 
Isaian predictions of the fate of the Servant seems to attend the 
description of the burial in the tomb of a rich man (cf. Is 53:9). 
In addition the description of the angel (‘‘young man’’—veavicxds— 
Mk. 16:5) ‘‘sitting on the right side’’ (cf. Lk. 1:11) of the tomb, 
sent to deliver a message from heaven as in Lk. 1:11 ff., 26 ff. sug- 
gests a similar derivation for this material; for angels play no part 
elsewhere in the story of Mark, and represent an alien element in 
the Temptation story. 

All these details suggest an origin for the story of the Women at 
the Sepulchre in that Special Source of Luke which we have found 
reason in many passages to regard as utilized by Mark, a source 
in which to an extraordinary extent women are given the place of 
honor. In any event the story represents a relatively late and 
legendary development, as compared with the apostolic resurrec- 
tion gospel. It certainly grew up at Jerusalem, where the shrine of 
the sepulchre was cherished and pointed out as “‘the place where 
the Lord lay.’’ How far back in local tradition the story of the 
women finding it empty on the third day could be traced it would 
be hopeless and fruitless to conjecture. Possibly the story began to 
be told to visiting pilgrims from Rome and elsewhere even before 
Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem. All we can be sure of is that it had 
no standing as compared with the report of the eye-witnesses so 
long as the proofs adduced by Paul in I Cor. 15: 1-11 continued to 
be the common apostolic resurrection gospel. 


316 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


The date we must assign to Mark is the date when the story told 
by Peter and Paul was already receding into oblivion, displaced 
by a shrine-story from Jerusalem which seemed to give more tan- 
gible proof of the bodily nature of the resurrection. It would be 
easier to conceive of this after the beginning of the reign of Domi- 
tian. It is incredible that it should have occurred in less than ten 
years after the expiration of ‘‘the age of the teaching of the 
Apostles. ’’ 


CHAPTER XXIV 
SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 


WE have reached the conclusion of our task. Detailed enquiry into 
the origin and value of the ancient tradition has shown it to be in 
real harmony with the internal evidence of the writing, when both 
are taken in their true sense. The testimony of the Elder, repre- 
senting the judgment of Jerusalem authorities shortly after 110 
A.D., appears to be based on the title and general nature of the 
Gospel rather than personal knowledge of the circumstances of its 
composition. Nevertheless the testimony is far from valueless. The 
Elder takes no interest in such questions as the modern critic would 
wish to put, and probably has no knowledge on these subjects to 
convey. He knows who Peter was and who Mark was, and he also 
knows the authentic and apostolic type of teaching known as “‘say- 
ings and doings of the Lord.’’ His questioner desires to know 
whether the Gospel submitted (our own canonical Mark) truly 
represents this, or is to be rejected with the “‘alien commandments’’ 
and the ‘‘vain talk of those who have so very much to say.’’ The 
reply is favorable. The sayings and doings here given may be ac- 
cepted as truly representing Peter according to the teaching of 
Mark, the follower of Paul, once a companion of Peter. It is not a 
complete account of Peter’s teaching, for Mark had not heard all. 
Moreover it has the character of a posthumous collection of ‘“mem- 
orabilia’’ (dzopvnuovevyara) in that its order is not that of a true 
biography (Bios). When it was drawn up the means of attaining 
such an order were no longer available. But for the purpose in 
view (religious instruction) it is a work to be commended. Such is 
the verdict of ‘‘the Elder.’’ 

An impartial, thoroughly informed judgment of the internal 
evidence cannot but concur with the verdict of ‘‘the Elder.’’ The 
Gospel has so thoroughly embodied ‘‘Petrine’’ tradition as known 
in its own period as to have completely monopolized the field except 
in one direction. It is far more complete in the direction of the 
‘*doings’’ than of the ‘‘sayings.’’ So manifestly is this the case that 
two independent attempts were made to supply the deficiency, both 
utilizing an otherwise unknown compilation only slightly drawn 
‘upon by Mark. In this Second Source (really older than Mark and 
in several respects better informed) the main interest had been the 


318 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


‘‘sayings’’ rather than the ‘‘doings.’’ Perhaps because of its ar- 
rangement of the material in the form of brief anecdotes introduc- 
ing discourses in which the ‘‘sayings’’ had been already extended 
into the form of didactic discourses, perhaps because it lacked the 
prestige attaching to Mark as directly representing Peter, the 
original order of Q has not survived. Both later Synoptists use the 
order of Mark in preference to that of the Second Source, if in- 
deed the original order and literary structure of the Second Source 
had not by their time already been largely modified by revision and 
accretion. Our study confirms the generally accepted verdict of 
criticism that the Gospel of Mark is based on written sources, among 
which must be included some form of the Second Source, though 
for reasons of his own Mark has used Q in only a sparing way, and 
with the primary object of obtaining from it data bearing on his 
own account of the career and person of Jesus. Certainly when em- 
ployed in common by Matthew and Luke, and probably when em- 
ployed by Mark the Second Source had already been translated into 
Greek from its original Aramaic. 

For the question of date none of the sources of Mark can com- 
pare in importance with the sources he employs in his great dis- 
course of Jesus on the Doom of Jerusalem (Mk. 13:1-37). The chap- 
ter is certainly composite, and includes elements derived from the 
Second Source in combination with others which place in the mouth 
of Jesus definite predictions concerning the overthrow of the temple 
and accompanying woes on “‘those in Judea.’’ For half a century 
it has been common among gospel critics to regard this latter ele- 
ment, known as the Synoptie ‘‘Little Apocalypse,’’ as derived from 
a particular writing, and even to connect this ‘leaflet’ with a state- 
ment of Eusebius that the Christians in Jerusalem retired from the 
city before the siege in obedience to a “‘revelation’’ granted to some 
of their number “‘before the outbreak of the war.’’ Our present 
enquiry leads to the conclusion that such a ‘‘revelation from the 
Lord’’ had indeed been current, and for almost thirty years before 
the outbreak of the great rebellion. The distinctive character of 
this primitive apocalypse was its application to current events of 
the prophecies of Daniel concerning the profanation of the temple 
and the succeeding cataclysm. But we can also trace in the Epistles 
to the Thessalonians an eschatology of similar type, and this is ex- 
pressly ascribed to “‘a word of the Lord,’’ that is, an apocalypse 
or revelation, through one of the “prophets” of the Church. Two 
features are distinctive of the Thessalonian eschatology, and assure 
its agreement if not identity with the Synoptic Little Apocalypse: 
(a) It has the same Danielic basis and outline; (b) it introduces 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 319 


the hitherto unknown figure of the Antichrist as profaner of the 
temple. The unmistakable presence of this apocalyptic element, 
alien to the authentic teaching of Jesus in the flesh, though en- 
dorsed by Paul as a true (apocalyptic) ‘‘word of the Lord,’’ as the 
central feature of Mark’s chapter on the Doom of Jerusalem, is the 
most significant element in the Gospel of Mark for the determina- 
tion of its date, and leads to certain positive results, whether the 
apocalyptic material circulated in written or only oral form. 

1. The nucleus of the apocalypse is an expectation which can be 
dated at no other time than 40 a.p. that the temple would be pro- 
faned in a manner corresponding to Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 as 
a prelude to deliverance by the return of Christ. 

2. In the form represented in the Thessalonian Epistles this 
‘‘word of the Lord’’ has undergone a modification adapting it to 
the sudden change of the situation brought about by the assassina- 
tion of Caius January 24, 41. Paul, writing in 50, still expects the 
profanation of the temple, but by appearance there of the Anti- 
christ 7 person, the present delay being due to a ‘‘Restrainer”’ 
(Claudius?). Antichrist now replaces the material object (statue of 
Caius) which had been expected as a literal fulfilment of Daniel. 
This change is reproduced in Mk. 138: 14. 

3. In the form represented in the Markan Doom-chapter the 
revelation has undergone a second modification, slight in degree 
but highly significant in character. The profanation no longer is 
expected ‘‘in the temple of God.’’ The Antichrist only stands 
‘““where he ought not.’’ The calamities on disobedient Israel follow, 
but the evangelist’s warning to his readers is not to expect an im- 
mediate return of Christ, and not to be misled by false hopes of 
the type deprecated by Paul in Thessalonica. The End will not 
come till the superterrestrial powers of evil have been overthrown. 

Our conclusion from the eschatology of Mark, after comparison 
with the Pauline on the one side, with Matthew and Luke on the 
other, was that Mark ‘‘looks back’’ (to use the expression of Well- 
hausen) on the events of 66-70 as ‘‘already past.’’ Matthew re- 
compares Daniel and finds a fulfilment in the event to which 
Josephus ascribes the outbreak of the war, the profanation of a 
synagogue in Caesarea. Matthew encourages hope for the Coming 
immediately after the present ‘‘tribulation.’’ Luke applies the 
prophecy to Jerusalem, but with complete recasting of its form so 
as to make the “‘desolation’’ that due to the compassing ‘‘armies.’’ 
The End will be as in Mark. The original form of the primitive 
' “revelation’’ can therefore be dated with very great probability in 
40 a.p. The Pauline modification is independently fixed at 50 a.p. 


320 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


The further Markan modification is certainly later than 70 a.D., 
but earlier than either Matthew or Luke. 

With this preliminary result our attention was next directed to 
the material employed by the evangelist, his mode of arrangement 
as regards both ‘‘sayings’’ (to a limited extent already aggregated 
in Discourses) and ‘‘doings,’’ the latter connected by an extremely 
meagre thread of narrative, barely allowing us to locate a few of 
the most salient points of the Ministry. More striking confirmation 
of the primitive characterization of this Gospel as collectanea rather 
than a systematic presentation either of sayings or doings could 
hardly be imagined. We must suppose that the evangelist did really 
attempt to give an account of the ministry. If this seems open to 
doubt in view of the extreme paucity of data adapted to such a 
purpose it would still be borne out by the monopoly enjoyed by 
Mark’s Gospel as the supreme authority in this field. An inference 
to be drawn with great positiveness from ‘this utilization of ma- 
terial, an inference which seems in some sense to have been already 
drawn in antiquity, is that the available material was ill adapted to 
the purpose in view. So far as the evangelist’s intention can be 
traced he seems to have in view something like the Aristotelian con- 
ception of tragedy. By means of the Prologue the reader is made 
acquainted with the true nature of Jesus as ‘‘the Son of God.’’ 
The divine hero moves toward the preordained catastrophe through 
a series of conflicts in which his true character is apparent to the 
reader, but those among whom he moves are blind to it. Even the 
little company of his disciples remain obtuse. They are tainted with 
the same zwpéos which affects their fellow-countrymen, so that 
even the terrified shrieks of the exorcised demons awaken in them 
no adequate sense of the Master’s true nature. Only at the cross 
does the Roman centurion, affected by we know not what phe- 
nomenon, exclaim in terms of heathen appreciation, Truly this man 
was “‘a’’ son of God. The real dénouement is reserved for a ‘‘mani- 
festation’’ to Peter and those with him which has disappeared from 
the original writing. 

But it is not to the literary world that we must look for examples 
even of the form and outline of Mark, much less for its material. 
Its compiler lived in a world familiar with the classic conception 
of tragedy, but he writes colloquial Greek in an uncultured style, 
for purposes primarily religious. His material consists of ‘‘sayings 
and doings of the Lord’’ that were already tending to gravitate 
toward an orbit focussing on two nuclei, baptism and the supper. 
There are even indications of the use of some form of Petrine 
narrative (dujyyos) of (north-?) Syrian origin also employed by 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 321 


Luke. But such earlier compilations of narrative type as may have 
existed were soon superseded by Mark itself. The important point 
for us to observe is that the field into which we are carried back 
by the attempt to extricate the written sources of Mark and Luke 
is not that of Petrine teaching as known to Paul, but that which 
we have designated deutero-Petrine. These sources were in Aramaic 
or in ‘translation’-Greek. This implies for the sources a Syrian, 
perhaps a Palestinian origin. But they too were ‘post-apostolic’ if 
with the ancients we limit the ‘‘teaching of the Apostles,’’ to the 
reign of Nero. The narrative source which we can most clearly trace 
almost certainly looked back with a sympathy and regret quite 
lacking to Mark on the destruction of the city of David. Jerusalem 
had perished according to this source because it knew not the time 
of its visitation, and had rejected the things which belonged to its 
peace. Equally cogent, though less definite as a mark of date is the 
‘‘Paulinization’’ of this deutero-Petrine literature. The claims 
made in behalf of Peter as supreme authority, even in regions most 
distinctly of Pauline foundation, are such as could not have been 
advanced during Paul’s lifetime. Hand in hand with these excessive 
imputations of authority to Peter go sweeping concessions in the 
line of universalism. 

In this post-apostolic period movements of unification are taking 
place which have left as their monuments the so-called ‘Catholic’ 
Epistles. Both ‘Peter’ and ‘James’ endeavor to take the leadership 
over the Christian Diaspora as a new ‘‘Israel of God.’’ ‘Peter’ 
looks to the Supper and the doctrine of the Servant as a uniting 
factor in the fiery trial of Roman persecution which besets all alike. 
‘James’ uses the doctrine of the ‘Spirit,’ the gift of the Father of 
lights in baptism, interpreting it as a new Torah, contending not 
so much against Paul as against the abuses of Paulinism. ‘James’ 
seeks unity in a Church threatened from within by lax morality 
and ‘‘vain talk.’? He urges return to the teaching of Jesus and the 
Wisdom that comes from above. His encyclical breathes the very 
atmosphere of Q. ‘Jude’ his ‘‘brother’’ seconds his appeal, making 
still more specific application of the moral. But the Catholic Epistles 
are post-apostolic. If First Peter is late, these books are later still. 
The Epistle comes from a deutero-James of perhaps 895-90 a.p. 
Nevertheless it throws a welcome light upon its own epoch. The 
church from which it emanates is unquestionably Palestinian, and 
is honestly and earnestly seeking a rapprochement with the Pauline 
churches, to which the Epistle is addressed in nearly faultless 
-Greek, If First Peter stretches out a right hand of fellowship from 
Rome, James speaks for Jerusalem. At least a part of the Pales- 


322 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


tinian church must, then, have laid to heart the lesson of the disas- 
ters of the great war. These circles in Rome and Jerusalem supply 
to Mark his ‘Petrine’ materials. Toward those elements which are 
mainly concerned with the teaching Mark is decidedly cold. Against 
the Son of David Christology and the claims of the Desposyni he is 
frankly hostile. But he resorts to both types of the tradition. He 
includes ‘‘sayings’’ as well as “‘doings.’’ Indeed he had no other 
recourse. He is as western and as Pauline as he could afford to be, 
but how could one fulfil his task without embodying both elements 
of Petrine tradition ? 

The language of the materials is strongly tinctured from its 
Aramaic sources. But the same may be said of the Hvang. Petri, a 
product of the second century. Mark himself uses the Greek Old 
Testament and writes for a church similarly schooled. His Greek 
is uncultured. The Greek of Hermas is not dissimilar. There are 
occasional traces of Pauline phraseology such as ¢povew 7a Tod Geot 
in Mk. 8:35 with which Wendling (Hntstehung des Markusevan- 
geliums, p. 114) bids us compare Rom. 8:5; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:1, 
declaring it ‘‘thoroughly Pauline.’’ We have referred before to 
cipnvevere in 9:50 and the possibility of direct dependence on Col. 
2:22 in Mk. 7:7. But too much is made of the attempt to find a 
literary relationship with Paul. The relation is indirect, as when 
Jesus is said to preach 76 evayyeAvov (Luke usually prefers to use the 
verb), but his hearers are exhorted to believe ‘‘in”’ it (awrevew év TO 
evayyeA(w), an expression almost certainly derived from the Aramaic. 
Even in the language of the Supper narrative the medium of trans- 
fer is oral. The influence of Paul concerns substance rather than 
Janguage, and has affected the sources before it affected the evan- 
gelist. 

Philologians are still at work upon the linguistic phenomena of 
Mark. One who can speak with authority sums up thus a char- 
acteristic article: ‘‘Synoptie study has been excavating the upper 
strata; we need now to dig down into the older archaeological layers 
underneath.’’ A very recent writer recalls the utterance of Weiz- 
sicker forty years ago concerning these same Synoptic sources: 
‘“The memorial which the primitive Church thus left of itself may 
be still employed to furnish an insight into its own life.’’? So far 
as one not an expert in the interrelations of Hellenistic Greek and 
the various Semitic dialects can venture an opinion, the language of 

1 Cadbury in Harvard Theological Review for Fan., 1923. 

Set asthe H. T. Fowler in Journal of Biblical Literature, XLIII (1924), 
Pp: ¥- 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 323 


Mark would seem to lead back into this deutero-Petrine field. It will 
amply repay our effort. | 

If, then, we seek to determine constructively the environment to 
which these Beginnings of Gospel Story belong it is clearly that of 
the post-Pauline Church. Paul conspicuously lacks the means of 
appeal to written records. Says Professor Fowler in the article just 
quoted, 


Every time I go through the life and letters of Paul, I regret once and 
again that the Apostle had no book of the life or teachings of Jesus to leave 
with his newly founded churches. . . . I always remind my undergraduate 
students that Paul had no copy of the Gospel to leave with the Thessaloni- 
ans, lest with the uncompromising judgments of youth they form an unfair 
and unfavorable impression of the Apostle’s personality. 


The allusion is to Paul’s appeal to his own example when a written 
gospel would have made it more natural to cite the example of 
Jesus. 

Miracle and legend in the story of Mark have overgrown the 
figure of the historic Jesus, though estimates of early and late in 
this field are precarious. We should judge more safely by the 
absence of the historical than by the presence of the unhistorical. 
From this point of view we cannot but conclude that in spite of a 
graphic style and an interest in externals much more apparent 
than in Matthew and Luke our evangelist is conspicuously lacking 
in a really historical conception of Jesus’ career. He writes from a 
period when the outlook of the Church is universalistic beyond 
dispute. Gentile missions are scarcely argued. They are rather pre- 
supposed. The gospel must first be preached to all the nations before 
one may expect the End (13:10). A section is indeed introduced 
with special reference to nationalistic and ceremonial limitations 
(7:1-8:26), but Mark does not claim that Jesus ‘‘preached the 
gospel’’ to Gentiles. He merely makes the most of a sojourn of Jesus 
in Gentile territory (alleged on slender grounds) to show how he 
overrode these limitations and predicted a time when the Gentiles 
also should share in the blessings now given only to ‘‘the children.’’ 

If the growth of miracle and legend, and the inaccuracies of 
Mark in matters of geography and history afford too precarious a 
means of judgment for more than corroboration of independent 
results such is also the case with the development of doctrine here 
encountered. The evangelist combats a Son of David Christology 
of the Jewish-christian type and by opposing presupposes it. He 
stands on a level in this respect with the author of Hebrews. He 
also presupposes a Son of Man Christology without opposing it. 


324 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


In this respect the evangelist stands on the level of Paul. The same 
applies to the Servant Christology. It hes in the background of 
thought for both. But does Mark’s Christology show the influence 
of Paul? There is no trace of the Wisdom doctrine of Paul involv- 
ing preéxistence and incarnation. What we have in the prologue of 
Mark is a doctrine of divine foreordination, as in I Pt. 1:20. If 
we are reminded of Col. 1:18, 19 in Mk. 1:10 f., we miss the 
Wisdom doctrine of verses 15-17. But the mere absence of this 
metaphysical element does not imply a pre-Pauline date, for the 
same thing is true of First Peter, which undeniably rests on Paul. 
We are merely carried back to a type of Christology which belongs 
to the Greek-speaking Church of the period after Paul. This is 
‘eatholic’ doctrine of the age represented by Hebrews and the 
Catholic Epistles. 

In the treatise entitled Js Mark a Roman Gospel? indications of 
the Roman origin of this Gospel have been adduced confirming the 
ancient tradition of the Church regarding its provenance. All this 
may be accepted without closing our eyes to certain larger phe- 
nomena made more apparent by our present study. Like all the 
Gospels that of Mark, their prototype, rested primarily on the 
accumulated teaching material of some local community. It cireu- 
lated at first only in the region of its birth. Probably it passed 
through several phases of enlargement before it found wider ac- 
ceptance. But Mark as known to us draws upon too far-reaching 
sources, Aramaic even more than Greek, and secures too complete 
a monopoly of the field in East as well as West, to have come from 
any provincial community. If (as seems most probable) it was 
linked with First Peter in the Muratorian Canon, this Roman list 
of ca. 180 A.D. citing it in the missing portion as it cites First John 
in connection with the Fourth Gospel, this connection was well 
founded. The outlook of Mark is as wide as that of First Peter, or 
wider. The situation which would best account for its militant 
tone is one which calls for the same heroic stand on the part of the 
world-wide brotherhood in imitation of the martyr death of the 
Servant as that to which the writers of Hebrews and First Peter 
summon their readers. The social character of Mark is that of a 
community product. But its community is no narrow one. The be- 
liever who in imitation of the Lord forsakes all, incurring the 
enmity of those of his own household, being delivered up to death 
by parents, children, brothers, hated of all men for Christ’s sake, 
will find his reward not only in the eternal life of heavenly glory, 
but also in the present age. The love is as widespread as the hatred. 
Many of those to whom this Gospel was first given had already suf- 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 325 


fered the spoiling of their goods. They could find comfort in Jesus’ 
answer to Peter and the Twelve when these began to say, ‘‘Lo, we 
have left all and followed thee.’’ Jesus had promised that such 
sufferers should ‘‘receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses 
and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with 
persecutions.’’ Mark and First Peter have readers who know what 
it is both to “‘suffer for the name’’ and to receive kindnesses ‘‘in 
name that ye are Christ’s’’ (Mk. 9:41). 

It is in this deutero-Petrine age of world-wide suffering under 
persecution, offset by a world-wide drawing together of the Church, 
that we must find the true environment of the first attempt (or at 
least the first surviving attempt) to bind together the scattered 
anecdotes of the apostolic preaching into a story of the ministry 
and martyrdom of Jesus. The Gospels have not told us their full 
story until together with their transmitted material they furnish 
also, between the lines, an insight into the life of the primitive 
Church in that age of obscurity which followed the death of the 
great leaders. It is time that the question of gospel origins were 
lifted above the level of polemic. The apologist can afford to be 
satisfied with a date which had the unanimous endorsement of 
antiquity. The critic, if he be true to his professions, wants nothing 
but the verdict of history. The thoughtful Christian, expert or in- 
expert, wants only to know whether these primitive memorials re- 
flect the life and spirit and teaching of Jesus in such a way as to 
make them live again in succeeding generations. This they are 
bound to do. But new and welcome light is destined to break forth 
from these narratives if together with the materials they embody 
historical enquiry can give us some knowledge of the media through 
which the record has passed. We have the Pauline Epistles to 
guarantee to us the story of the redemption wrought for the world 
by God in Christ. What we obtain in addition from Petrine story 
is not a mere transcript of the fisherman-Apostle’s words, but side- 
lights from the primitive Church, reactions from unknown listeners, 
who after all, nameless as they are, made the story ‘‘the power of 
God unto salvation for as many as believe, whether Jews or Gen- 
tiles.’’ It is not all loss to the Gospels that they have their ‘‘absorp- 
tion bands’’ as well as their brilliant tints of transmitted light. 

We should count it a disappointing result of study and effort 
merely to have overthrown that ill-founded limit set up by a super- 
ficial modern criticism over against the ancient tradition of a post- 
apostolic origin for Mark, forbidding us to consider a date later 
than the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.p. Doubtless it is in reality a 
better and sounder foundation for apologetic to regard the Gospel 


326 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


of Mark as a post-apostolic compilation of traditions and documents 
current under the name of Peter, than to assume for it a reflection 
of the very words of Peter such as the internal evidence fails to 
support. But our object is not apologetic, but historical. It now 
appears that we are not dealing, as apologists have so long main- 
tained, with Peter’s preaching reduced to writing by an amanuen- 
sis either before, or shortly after his death. The Gospel according 
to Mark was really the output of some great church in the sub- 
apostolic period. Whether this was the church at Rome, as tradi- 
tion has maintained from the first, or some other, it put forth a 
careful compilation which everywhere displaced earlier written ac- 
counts of the sayings and doings of the Lord. The displacement 
was probably due to a claim to greater authority. The work was 
widely received as truly representing the preaching of Peter. Much 
still remains unsolved as regards this precanonical, deutero-Petrine 
material, but the advantage of new insight into the beginnings of 
gospel literature will not be obtained unless we use results con- 
structively. They should enable us to understand better the new 
stage of progress in the life of the Church, a stage marked by the 
substitution of the authority of Peter, reporter of the sayings and 
doings of the Lord, for the authority of Paul; when the literature 
of the catechist and teacher took the place of the eneyclical of the 
missionary founder, when ‘“‘Epistles’’ of Peter and James were 
followed by efforts to reproduce the Petrine story of the sayings 
and doings of the Lord, and the new Torah of Jesus. 

Such knowledge as we have of the demands of the age which fol- 
lowed that of ‘‘the teaching of the Apostles’’ justifies the belief 
that the name Mark, and still more the name Peter, carried great 
weight. Both names were known to East as well as West. Both had 
come finally to be connected with Rome. If Rome averred on au- 
thority. of Mark, originally one of the inner circle at Jerusalem, 
cousin of Barnabas, trusted companion and lieutenant of Paul and 
spiritual ‘‘son’’ of Peter, that its Gospel contained the real body of 
true evangelic tradition, smaller churches in the Greek-speaking 
world would have difficulty in maintaining the prestige of any ‘‘syn- 
taxes of the precepts’’ or ‘‘narratives of the sayings and doings of 
the Lord’’ which they might have become accustomed to use. The 
case would be somewhat different in Aramaic-speaking regions, as 
at Antioch, and especially in Jerusalem, where the church claimed 
to have living oral tradition. But Jerusalem after the siege and 
overthrow of 70 A.D. was not in a condition to provide the Church 
with written Gospels, even had it been willing to throw open to 
public use what soon came to constitute its one great distinction. 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 327 


As for Caesarea and Antioch they do appear, as matter of fact, to 
have furnished in due time their own improvements on Mark, princi- 
pally by adding the teaching material of the Second Source. Luke- 
Acts is probably an Antiochian product, Matthew either from 
Caesarea or some other Palestinian centre where Greek was princi- 
pally used. Its close would lead us to think of Galilee. Ephesus did 
the work for the Pauline churches of Asia, and did it nobly. But the 
Ephesian Gospel made small headway until it was at last baptized 
into the name of John. Even then, toward the close of the second 
century, it was not universally received. What concerns the student 
of Christian origins is not so much a few years added to or sub- 
tracted from the age of a given Gospel (even were it our earliest) 
as the ability to form some adequate conception of the great age of 
Gospel-composition inaugurated by Mark. It began after the death 
of the leading Apostles and principal eye-witnesses, and lasted 
scarcely more than a single generation. Once the generation of those 
who had known “‘eye-witnesses and ministers of the word’’ had 
passed away gospel writing quickly degenerated. 

But the work performed by the Synoptic evangelists can scarcely 
be overestimated. It certainly saved the Christian Church from 
extinction, whether by absorption into one of the many theosophic 
sects contending for adherents under the empire, or by descending 
to the level of one of the numerous Jewish sects. This age of the 
composition of Gospels (for we must include in this period the 
Pauline evangelist of Ephesus also) gave to the world by far the 
most influential writings it has ever known. Yet the period is the 
obscurest in church history. It has no names of its own to celebrate, 
depending almost wholly on those of the past. It does not pretend 
to be a creative age. It is so overawed by the greater authority of 
the preceding generation as to resort to pseudonymity when it 
seeks to speak with authority. Yet its creations are the most im- 
mortal of all literature. 

We would use the documents of the time to bridge the chasm 
between the missionary age of the Church, the age of Peter and 
Paul, and the post-apostolic, when the scattered brotherhoods be- 
gan to unite against the common dangers of persecution on the one 
side, heresy on the other. It should be a help to group its few re- 
maining monuments of the epistolary literature, disputed as they 
are in respect to both date and authorship, to see what light, if 
any, they can shed on gospel origins. The earliest of these remains 
is the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews, anonymous, but certainly 
‘not distant in origin from Mark and probably addressed to Rome, 
whence Mark is believed to emanate. We have next First Peter, a 


328 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


writing whose Roman provenance is widely acknowledged, and 
whose date we have sought to establish but a few years later than 
our Gospel. In First Peter Mark is mentioned by name. Lastly we 
have the Epistle of James, certainly representing a very different 
milieu from the two already mentioned, but not distant in date from 
First Peter and like it addressed to the Christian ‘‘Diaspora.’’ Is 
it not possible, with so much material practically contemporary in 
date, to form a clearer idea than heretofore of the situation faced 
by our evangelist, and the resources available to meet it. 

The salient feature of the times for the infant Church was the 
new danger of world-wide official persecution by imperial policy. 
The Roman Empire, once a friend and protector against mob 
violence stirred up by Jewish jealousy, had become their enemy. 
This danger was the immediate one and the more urgent. Satan 
was conspicuous to all when he went about as a roaring lion, seek- 
ing whom he might devour. Less immediate and less obvious to the 
average believer was the danger of perversion from within. Chris- 
tianity was rapidly growing to be a considerable religious force 
among those new religions of personal redemption which contended 
as rivals for dominion in Graeco-Roman civilization. With higher 
or lower motives Hellenistic theosophists and sectaries flocked in 
to seek the leadership. The age of the Apostles was past. There was 
no longer a Paul to dispute in the schools of Ephesus and stem the 
tide of superstition ever flowing from the mountains of Phrygia 
toward the coastlands. After his ‘‘departing’’ (d¢.éts) came oppor- 
tunity for ‘‘many grievous wolves to enter in’’ to Paul’s mission 
field, ‘‘not sparing the flock.’’ Also from among their own selves 
men arose, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples 
after them (Acts 20: 28 f.). The teaching of Peter was the natural 
resort of all who would maintain the purity of the message. But 
the death of Peter followed that of Paul by only a brief interval. 
Jerusalem and its group of apostolic teachers surrounding the per- 
son of James the Lord’s brother might well be thought of, in spite 
of former misunderstandings. But James ‘‘and certain others’’ of 
the group (Josephus, Ant. XX, ix. 1) were stoned to death under 
Ananus the high priest in Jerusalem in 62, and after 70 the whole 
group was scattered. Caesarea not many years later sent to Hier- 
apolis Philip, an old friend of Paul’s; and Philip was accompanied 
by his ‘‘four virgin daughters that prophesied,’’ one of whom 
married a Christian and remained at Ephesus. But ‘‘the churches 
of Asia’’ obtained their chief help from Palestine in stemming the 
tide of heresy in the form of a literature. 

The first element of the Ephesian canon was an apocalypse, which 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 329 


appeared under the name of ‘‘John,’’ refuting the deniers of resur- 
rection and judgment. Later additions took the form of Epistles 
and a Gospel, anonymous but ultimately superscribed by tradition 
with the same apostolic name as the Apocalypse. Previously the 
defence against heresy in the region of Ephesus had been carried 
on under the name of Paul. Here were drawn up with the aid of 
literary fragments really from Paul’s hand, the so-called Pastoral 
Epistles to Timothy and Titus, already known to Ignatius and 
Polycarp. These use the name and authority of Paul against the 
heretics, particularly those who misuse the Law and declare the 
resurrection to be past already (Ti. 1:16; II Tim. 2:18). Ephesus 
was the centre of the battlefield, and Ephesus furnished ultimately, 
under the name of ‘‘John,’’ the great answers of the Church first to 
the deniers of the resurrection and judgment, afterward to the 
perverters of the Lord’s precepts. But the battle against false doc- 
trine was as universal as the battle against persecution, and neither 
Jerusalem, nor Antioch, nor Ephesus was strong enough to supply 
a leadership for the Church at large. 

It is significant as a reflection of these conditions of the Church 
at large that the epistolary writings we possess from this period 
are in two instances addressed as encyclicals intended either for 
the entire Christian community, or for a region so extensive as to 
give the document this ‘‘catholic’’ character. The “‘epistle’’ had 
been Paul’s great weapon of acknowledged efficacy (II Cor. 10: 
9 f.). It is taken up, as we have seen, at Rome under the name of 
‘‘Peter’’ to meet the urgent danger of the imperial policy of perse- 
eution, encouraging the brethren in Anatolia, endorsing their faith 
learned from Paul and Silvanus, and commending to them the 
example of the Suffering Servant. ‘‘Peter’’ as a fellow-elder with 
Paul’s appointees and ‘‘a witness of the sufferings of Christ’’ seeks 
to aid them in ‘‘tending the flock of God.’’ Only a few years later 
Rome shows a similar sense of responsibility for the welfare of the 
brethren in Corinth, sending through Clement a long Epistle to aid 
in the Christian settlement of a local dispute. The leadership of 
‘‘the flock of God’’ has not yet passed to the successors of Peter, 
but one can easily foresee what will be the outcome. 

It is probably between these two epistles from Rome, First Peter 
and Clement, that we should date the ‘‘catholic’’ Epistle of James, 
addressed to ‘‘the twelve tribes of the (Christian) dispersion’’ with 
an adoption of the same figures of speech as in the opening chapter 
of First Peter. This also is an attempt to draw the Church together 
’ under a common leadership. James, whom the Palestinian church 
delighted to regard as head of the Christian world, designating him 


330 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


‘bishop of bishops,’’ is the name assumed by this Palestinian 
writer, who is less concerned than ‘Peter’ for ‘‘the fiery persecu- 
tion’’ extending throughout Christendom. Indeed the times had 
changed. Under Vespasian and Titus, and even the first years of 
Domitian, the Church had opportunity to recover from the hos- 
tility of Nero. The keenest experience of martyrdom had receded 
into the past. Heresy came into the foreground as the greater 
danger. Satan’s power was now felt more in the form of the seduc- 
ing serpent (II Cor. 11:3). And the distinctive function of Jeru- 
salem was to maintain the purity of the faith. In the Epistle of 
James Jerusalem speaks to the Church at large. Here too the great 
weapon of Paul, the church letter, is taken up in an endeavor to 
cope with the universal danger. But the name assumed is not 
Paul’s, and Paul’s doctrine is not understood. Jerusalem was ulti- 
mately to furnish (probably under the name of Peter) her most 
precious contribution to the faith in those teachings of the Lord 
which were ultimately incorporated with Mark in the Palestinian 
and Antiochian Gospels. But as yet the mother-church claims to 
hold the teaching in oral form. 

There is close affinity between James and the Second Source, but 
in the Epistle Jerusalem (or perhaps Caesarea: acting for the 
Palestinian church) is attempting, like Rome, to use the encyclical 
after Paul’s example. The author uses it in an eirenie spirit, but 
not without a keen rebuke for the doctrine of salvation by faith 
‘‘apart from works of law.’’ Thus in Palestine also the same general 
need is felt. ‘James’ as well as ‘Peter’ seeks to provide a much- 
needed catholic leadership. Jerusalem offers the Christian world a 
new law of liberty, taught in the spirit of that ‘‘wisdom which 
cometh from above.’’ This is its ideal of the ‘‘bond of unity.’’ 

These two great post-apostolic Epistles are not written by the 
men whose names they bear; but the names assumed are far from 
valueless. The Epistles of First Peter and James are attempts to 
embody the spirit of Christian teaching as understood in the great 
centres where these names were chiefly revered. Their authors look 
back to a real Peter and a real James. Not that they may clothe 
their own thoughts with a factitious and spurious authority, but 
that they may convey to a generation whose need they profoundly 
appreciate the message which they truly believe these great leaders 
of the past would have supplied. We may deprecate the method. 
‘We may regret beyond measure that we have not the very words 
of Peter and James in person. But since these are denied us, surely 
it is better to have sincere attempts on the part of their followers 
to give us their message and spirit, than if there were no such at- 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 331 


tempt at all. The Epistles of Peter and James embody the spirit 
of Christianity as understood in. the post-apostolic age in the two 
great centres whence are derived the roots of Synoptic tradition, 
Jerusalem and Rome. Just as ancient criticism correlated the 
Epistle of Peter with the Gospel of Mark, so modern criticism 
would do well to study the Epistle of James in conjunction with its 
own discovery of the Second Source. But the literary weapon of 
the Church for its great battle of the new age was not to be forged 
by Paul. It was rather that to which the simple story told by Peter 
had given birth. Not the Epistle, but the Gospel, the story of the 
sayings and doings of Jesus, was the greatest literary product of 
the Church. It is the four Gospels which won the victory in the 
conflict against persecution without and heresy within. 

It would carry us too far afield to attempt any correlation be- 
tween Synoptic literature and the Pastoral Epistles. Their field, 
as already indicated, is that of Paul in Ionia. But with Hebrews 
the case is somewhat different. True, Hebrews is a local rather than 
a general epistle. But we have here a writing almost contemporary 
with Mark, earlier (to judge by traces of dependence) than First 
Peter, and probably addressed to a brotherhood of Christians resi- 
dent in Rome. Kindred features of doctrine between Hebrews and 
Mark have already been pointed out, in particular the reaction 
against a Son of David Christology and in favor of a Christ ‘‘ with- 
out father or mother and without a genealogy’’ miraculously mani- 
fested as Son of God by the resurrection, when God exalted him to 
His own ‘‘right hand.’’ It has often been noted that in Hebrews 
traces of appeal to the earthly life of Jesus begin to appear, as in 
the references to the Temptation (Heb. 4:15), the Baptismal Call 
(5:5), Gethsemane (5:7), and crucifixion ‘‘outside the gate’’ (13: 
12). These are of course not evidences of literary connection with 
Mark, but merely of an environment common to the readers on 
both sides. The same is true of the conception of Judaism as marked 
by Sabbath-keeping, restriction of worship to a temple ‘‘built with 
hands’’ (vads xeporoinros, Mk. 14:58; cf. Heb. 9:11, 24), and a Law 
of carnal ordinances (Heb. 9:10; cf. Mk. 7: 1-23) in contrast with 
a New Covenant of forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 
8:1-10:17; cf. Mk. 10:45; 14:24). A recent commentator on 
Hebrews wonders why the Sabbath issue is introduced in Heb. 3: 
1-4:13. One might equally wonder why Mark’s account of the be- 
ginning of conflict between Jesus and the synagogue authorities 
concludes with two instances of his opposition to their sabbatarian- 
ism, apparently appended from a different original context and 
concluding with the sinister statement ‘‘And the Pharisees went 


332 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him 
how they might destroy him.’’ The explanation is not literary de- 
pendence, but a common atmosphere. At Rome (as indeed through- 
out the Gentile world) the Jew is known as “‘the Sabbath-keeping 
Jew.’’ According to the Preaching of Peter and other first- and 
second-century writers he is a worshipper of ‘‘angels and arch- 
angels,’’ which accounts for the opening argument of Hebrews, and 
perhaps for the title superscribed by the canon-makers. But this 
indictment of Jewish superstition plays no part in Mark, unless it 
be in the epithet ‘‘adulterous generation’’ (Mk. 8:38). Angels 
appear in the background of Mark (1:18; 8:38) though they play 
no part in the drama, the resurrection angel becoming merely ‘‘a 
young man’’ clad in shining garments. But Mark’s indictment of | 
Judaism has otherwise the same features as that of Hebrews. Like 
the author of Hebrews Mark would substitute for the Jewish 
sabbath 


the majestic march 
Of grand eternity 


just as with Hebrews he conceives God’s true temple to be 


the unmeasured arch 
Of yon ethereal sky. 


For a ‘‘law of carnal ordinances,’’ man-made, he would substitute, 
not a new and higher Torah like the later Synoptists, but what God 
ordained “‘from the beginning of the creation’’ (10:4, 9). Instead 
of ‘‘ washings of cups and pots and brasen vessels,’’ and distinctions 
of meats, which constitute the ‘‘vain worship’’ of a people of 
‘“‘hypocrites’’ that honor God with their lips while their heart is 
far from him (Mk. 7:1-8), Mark would substitute that inward 
purity from evil thoughts and purposes which constitutes the real 
‘‘commandment of God’’ (7: 14-23). 

Coincidences of doctrine and feeling such as these afford no evi- 
dence of literary connection. At most they testify to a common 
atmosphere, characteristic, perhaps, but hardly distinctive, of the 
readers addressed. And this is the utmost we have a right to expect 
between two writings addressed to the same locality not far from 
the same date, but otherwise so different in character and purpose. 
Some may think it possible to find a connection between the figura- 
tive comparison of Jesus’ death in Heb. 10:20 to a departure 
‘“‘within the veil’’ and the ‘‘rending’’ of the temple veil, a meta- 
phor taken in Mk. 15:38 as the report of a concrete and literal 
occurrence. It may be possible to find further kindred features. 


SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 333 


But these are not a matter of vital interest to the historian. If 
they serve in some minor .degree to help in the determination of 
dates, well and good. But mere dates are barren things in them- 
selves. They are no more satisfactory to the religious mind than 
the metallic keys to which they may be compared. But however 
juiceless and tasteless to the devotional palate, to the student they 
unlock treasures of understanding when applied with knowledge 
of the times. 3 

If the Epistle to the Hebrews be near in date to Mark and ad- 
dressed to the same Christian brotherhood, we shall do well first of 
all to take note of their common spirit, the heroic spirit of martyr- 
dom. Hebrews is written to a church on the eve of persecution 
‘‘unto blood.’’ ‘‘A great fight of affliction’’ has already been en- 
dured. Another, perhaps heavier, is to come. The author holds up 
the example of Christ ‘‘who for the joy that was spread out before 
him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the 
right hand of the majesty on high.’’ Not so much the picture of the 
Suffering Servant, enduring in silence his unmerited punishment, 
is that which uplifts the heart of this associate and “‘brother’’ of 
Timothy, but that of the noble army of martyrs, Jesus at their head, 


who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained 
promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, out of 
weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight armies 
of aliens. 


The Gospel of Mark echoes these martial tones. The lion is its 
worthy symbol. Its hero is the chosen Son of God, endowed with 
power, victorious over the strong man armed, triumphant even on 
the cross. Its path of redemption is the Way of the Cross. Eternal 
life is for those who have forsaken all that they may follow Jesus 
to Calvary. ‘‘He that would save his life shall lose it. He that will 
lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s the same shall save it.’’ 
Such is the characteristic call of its Christ of God. This Gospel 
knows no other way of salvation (Mk. 10:17 ff.). To borrow the 
phrase of a recent writer, Mark is characterized by a ‘‘martyr- 
motif.’’? To this evangelist alone, baptism and the cup are, as to 
Paul, symbols of ‘‘communion with the Lord’s death’’ (Mk. 10: 
39). Had we to seek an environment such as might give birth to 
this spirit it would be that to which the author of Hebrews addresses 
his exhortation, bidding his readers count neither possessions nor 
life dear for the gospel’s sake (Heb. 10: 32-36; cf. Mk. 9: 48-48), 
. recalling not only their own great fight of afflictions of former days, 
but bidding them also ‘‘ Remember them that had the rule over you, 


334 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 


men that spake unto you the word of God, and considering the issue 
(€xBaows) of their life, imitate their faith.’’ 

In a sense far from that contemplated by the critics of Tubingen 
Mark is the Gospel of Peter and Paul. Not in an effort at compro- 
mise between opposing parties in the Church does it seek the wel- 
fare of the whole, but conscious of the great message each Apostle 
had to convey, and in the spirit of their heroic martyrdom, it opens 
to the universal brotherhood of Christ the treasury of its apostolic 
teaching. Refiections are not wanting here of the free spirit of 
Paul. The lessons of Romans dominate in more than one of its care- 
fully compiled discourses. Sometimes the Paulinistic spirit of those 
who in Corinth demanded freedom from law with too little of the 
imitation of Christ seems more prominent than the truly Pauline. 
But the foundation of all is a story which had been heard at Rome 
long before they had seen the face of Paul or received his great 
Epistle. It was the story told by Peter as Paul himself had once 
““received’’ it, the story of the Servant who came not to be minis- 
tered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. 
It is this which made the gift of Rome to the Greek-speaking Chris- 
tian world immortal. Not Matthew, as Renan said, mistaking a 
mere transcript for the original, is the most influential book ever 
written, but Mark, earliest of our extant Gospels, first attempt to 
give to the world a joint message from the martyred Peter and 
Paul. 


The End. 


GENERAL INDEX 


Small caps = authors, etc. (Biblical names excepted). 


AsBBoTtT, E., 38 
Ablution (See also Purity, inward), 
175 
Abomination of Desolation (See Shiq- 
qutz ) 
ABRAHAMS, I., 244 
‘According to’ (kard) Matthew, Mark, 
etc., 12, 299 
Acts, ‘First’ and ‘Second,’ 6, 16 
Adoptionism (See Christology) 
Advocate (See Spirit) 
Age of Gospel-making, 327 
Acrippa I, 67, 70, 75, 82, 86, 93 
IT,.91 
ALBRIGHT, W. F., 304 
ALLEN, W. C., 16, 21] 
ANDREAS of Caesarea, 43, 176 
Angels, 197, 311 
Anointing in Bethany, 170 
Antichrist doctrine, 84 f., 92, 94, 114, 
125, 127, 129 f., 1382, 319 
Antioch, Syrian, 327 
ANTIPAS, HEROD, 72-75 
Apocalypse (See also Revelation), 65, 
267 
, the Little, 86, 88, 92, 102, 122, 
127, 227, 308, 318 
of Baruch, 128 
APOLLINARIOS, CLAUDIUS (of Hier- 
apolis), 36, 40, 42f., 174 
of Laodicaea 59, 205 
Apostasy, the Great, 128 
Apostolic Constitutions, 166 
Appearances (resurrection) 
To Five Hundred, 188 
To Peter, 188 f. 
To Women, 195, 197 
Appendix to John, 192 
Appendix to Mark, Longer, 189, 191, 
311 
Shorter, 189, 191, 311 
Aramaic Sources, 5 ff., 17, 58, 77, 
204 f., 210, 249, 310, 321 
ARETAS, 43 
Argumenta (See Prologues) 














ARISTION, 38 f. 

Ascension of Isaiah, 95, 99, 105 
Atonement (See Reconciliation) 
Authorship of Mark, 298 ff. 


Bacon, B. W. 
Harvard Studies VII, 12, 34, 59, 
207, 283, 294, 324 
Commentary, 4, 138, 140, 148, 152, 
156, 187 
Jesus and Paul, 245, 248 
HDCG, 39 
H. Th. &., 82, 206 
Fourth Gospel, 42 
JBL, 43 f., 63, 131 
ZNW, 161, 265 
Expositor, 82 
Baptism, 252 
and Supper, 321 
of Jesus, 250 f. 
of John, 155 
Teaching of, 206 
Barnabas, St., 70 
, Epistle of, 32, 116 
BARTLET, V., 35 
BASILIDES, 3, 37 
Bartimaeus, 225 
Baruch, 239 
Bath qol, Voice from Heaven (See 
Midrash) 
Baur, F. C., 14, 17 f., 55 
Belial (Beliar), 83 f., 92, 95 f., 101 
Beloved (Messianic title), 265 
Bethany = Beth-Ananiah, 304 
Betrayal of Jesus, 181 
Blasphemy of Scribes, 140, 159 
BRANDT, W., 201 
BRUCKNER, W., 247 





BULTMANN, R., viii, 47 


Burial (See also Resurrection), 314 
BuRNEY, C. F., 213 


Caesarea Palestina, 105, 327 
Philippi, 144, 157, 164, 306 
CADBURY, H., 322 


336 


CAIUS (CALIGULA), 56 
Sacrilege of 60, 89, 93, 95 
Caligula-apocalypse, 92 

Catechesis, 326 

Catholic Epistles, 321 

Centurion’s witness, 320 

CHARLES, R. H., 92 f. 

CHEYNE (Enc, Bibl.), 75 

Chiliasts, 36 

Christology, 165, 221 ff., 251, 264, 

323 f. 


of Son of David type, 221f., 226, 
323 
of the Servant type, 223 ff., 239, 
251, 324 
of the Son of Man type, 224, 246 
of the Son of God type, 226 ff., 268 
Adoptionist, 225 
CHRYSOSTOM, 293 
CLEMENT, of Rome, 8, 150, 288 f., 291, 
329 
of Alexandria, 244, 261, 282, 288, 
294 ff. 
Clementina (Homilies and Recogni- 
tions), 4, 236, 288 
Coming of the Son of Man (Parou- 
sia), 64, 91, 95, 103, 126, 129, 132. 
of Antichrist, 86, 90, 95, 97 
Commission, apostolic, 190, 192 


Compends (ovvrages) of the precepts, 


24, 44, 207, 278 
Covenant Supper (See Supper) 
Crucifixion, date of, 81, 285 
Cry from the Cross, 199, 209 


DALMAN, G., 216 f. 
Daniel, Prophecy of, 62, 64 f., 80, 86, 
95, 102, 111, 227, 308 f. 
Date of Mark, Problem of, 3 ff. 
Results, 308 ff., 317 ff. 
Demons, recognition by, 265 
Denunciation of Seribes, 151 
Desposyni (See Kindred) 
Deutero-Petrine writings, 
325 . 
Dialogue, with Trypho (See Justin) 
of Gaius and Proclus (See Gaius) 
Diarist, of Acts (See ‘We’-document) 
Diatessaron (See Tatian) 
Diatribe (Stoic), 231 
DIBELIUS, M., viii, 47, 238 
Didaché (See Teaching 
Twelve) 


310, 321, 


of the 


INDEX 


Dio Cassius, 73, 100 
Dionysius, of Alexandria, 171, 187 
Dionysius, of Corinth, 15, 284, 291 
Distinctions of meats (See also 
Purity), 147, 263 
Division in households, 123, 125 
Doom-chapter, 15, 53 ff., 66 f., 80 f. 
of Matthew, 99 ff., 105, 309 
of Luke, 113 ff. 
of Mark 120 ff. 
Draft of Fishes, 192 


Easter (Paschal) observance, 168 ff., 
270 
Elder(s), 24, 29f., 33, 39, 45f., 49, 
255, 276, 317 
(See also John the Elder) 
ELIAS REDIVIVUS, 72, 155 f., 165, 200, 
253 f. 
Emperor (Caesar) worship, 90, 96, 113 
Empty tomb, 183 
End of Mark, 195, 203, 311 (See also 
Appendix) 
End of the world, 103, 108-111, 309, 
319 
Enlightenment (g¢wricpds), 258 
Enoch, Ethiopic, 84, 180° 
Enoch fragment in Barnabas, 116, 
122, 128 
Ephesus, canon of, 329 
Epileptic healed, 166 
EPIPHANIUS, 33, 39, 74, 171, 213, 289, 
292 
Epistola Apostolorum, 166, 173 
Epistolary literature, 5 
Epoch, of the Apostolic Dispersion, 58, 
71, 80, 82, 285 
of the Neronic persecution, 15, 48, 
79, 281, 285, 299 
of the Acceptable Year, 81 
Error (adavj), 108 
Eschatological Discourse (See Doom- 
chapter ) 
Eucharist (See Supper) 
EUSEBIUS, Church History, 7, 22 f., 28, 
39, 42, 100, 293, 318 
Chronicon, 293 
Eye-witnesses, passing of, 327 


Feeding of multitude, 162 

Festus, 73, 100, 108 

Fig tree, Parable (Cursing) of, 117 f., 
152 


INDEX 


Firstfruits, 173, 314 
Flugblatt theory (See Leaflet) 
Foci of tradition, 206 
Forgiveness in heaven, 229 

on earth, 157 f. 
FOTHERINGHAM, J. K., 285 
Fow er, H. T., 322 

FRAME, J. E., 83, 93, 95 





Gaius, Dialogue of, 42 f. 
Galilean tradition (See Resurrection) 
GALLIO inscription, 94 
GARVIE, A. E., 8 
Gathering of the elect, 179 
GEMINI, the Two (See Epoch) 
Gentiles, ministry to, 163 
GEORGIUS HAMARTOLUS, 71 
GLAUKIAS (Interpreter of Peter), 37, 
288 
Gnosties, 31, 246 
Gospels (uncanonical) 
acc. to Peter, 188, 192 f., 197 
ace. to the Egyptians, 170 
acc. to the Hebrews, 188, 192 
GOULD, E. P., 15 
Greek Old Testament (LXX) (See 
Septuagint) 
Greek-speaking churches, 7 


HADRIAN, Edict of, 37 
Haggada and halakha, 47, 322. 
Hardening ( rwpéos ) of Israel, 143 
HARNACK, A., Contributions, 14 ff., 16, 
19 
Chronology, 18 f., 20, 35, 82, 285, 
293 
ZNW, 28 
Academy of Berlin, 58 
HARRISON, P. N., 302 
HAWKINS, Sir J. C., 19 
Hebrews and Mark, 327, 331 ff. 
HEGESIPPUS, Memoirs, 32f.,, 
289 f. 
Henry, F. A., 63 
Herodians, 74 
HEROD’s comment, 161 
mockery, 201 
HILGENFELD, A., 18 
Hopart, Medical Language, 19 
HOLTZMANN, H. J., 72, 246 
Hosanna, 216 


150, 





337 


IGNATIUS, Epistles, 3, 8, 36, 40, 187, 
192, 225, 291 

Immortality, 259 

Incarnation doctrine, 
239 f., 251 f. 

IRENAEUS, Haer., 14, 36, 53, 225, 255, 
277, 289, 291, 294 


Dat fieanees 


James, Epistle of, 154, 230 ff., 321, 
328 
JAMESON, H. G., 3 
JEROME, 59, 205 
Jerusalem, fall of, 15, 54, 66f., 83, 
chee oO EG LO MBs ht UO Wy oa Tt to db 
daughters of, 118 
tradition, 198, 203, 312 
church-leadership, 326, 330 
John 
the Baptist, 72, 152 ff., 329 
Apostle, 41 
Revelation of, 41, 44, 329 
the Elder, 24, 27, 33, 39, 276 
Joseph of Arimathea, 196 
JOSEPHUS, 14, 66, 72, 110, 175, 310, 
319 
Jubilees, 235 
JUSTIN Martyr, 25 f., 41, 54, 72, 155, 
180, 261 


Keim, T., 14 

Kiddush, 175, 178 

Kindred of Jesus, 141, 159, 161, 322 
KLAUSNER, J., 299 

KOSTLIN, 14 


LAKE, K. and FoAKES- JACKSON, 74 

Lament over Jerusalem, 117 

Leaflet theory, 63, 65 f., 129 

Legend, growth of, 57, 71, 323 

Leper cleansed, 157 

LIGHTFOOT, J. B., 28, 35, 38, 49, 288 f. 

Limits of date, 53 f., 79, 310 

Linguistic argument, 204 ff. 

Logia (precepts) of the Lord, 24, 26, 
28 


Logos doctrine, 224, 228 f., 240, 248 
Loisy, A., 298 
Luke (third evangelist), 10 


Machaerus, 72 

Manifestation, of Beliar, of Christ 
(See Coming, and Appearances) 

Mark, discourses of, 70, 121, 137 ff., 
144, 148, 162, 262 ff., 267 


338 


disesteemed, 27 
disregard for teaching, 139 
geography of, 209, 303 f. 
graphic style, 300 
incompleteness, 187 
priority of, 9 
stratification of, 138 
symbolism, 300 
western interest, 305 
Mark, John, of Jerusalem, 69, 296, 
301 f., 306 
‘signature’ of, 302 f. 
MARCION, 3, 37 
Martyrdom of James, 86 
of James and John, 70 f., 90, 212 f., 
310 
Martyr-motif of Mark, 333 
Matthew (first evangelist) 
tradition of, 23, 26 
his method, 10, 26, 44 
his prologue, 10 
translation of, 34 
omissions of, 202 
McLean, A, J., 211 
McNEILE, A. H., 64, 109 
MELITO of Sardis, 36, 43 
Memoirs (drouvnuoveduara) (See Remi- 
niscences ) 
MERRILL, E. T., 281 
Midrash, 47, 164 f., 243 f., 249 f., 253, 
256 
Ministry, outline of the, 152 ff. 
of the New Covenant, 240, 246 
Minucius FELIx, Dialogue, 253 
Miracles, 57, 323 
Miscellanies (dmouvnuoveduara) 
Reminiscences ) 
Mission of Israel, 233 
Mission of the Twelve (See Sending) 
MorraTt, J., 35, 40 
Monarchian Prologues 
logues) 
MONTANUS, 43 
MONTEFIORE, C. G., 62 
Mosaism, 167 
Moses as Mediator, 237, 240 
as Redeemer, 268 
ascension (transfiguration) of, 
238 ff. 
Second, 256 
Muratorianum, 11, 43, 278, 324 


(See 


(See Pro- 


INDEX 


Mystery, hiding of, 142, 152, 161, 263, 
266 
Mystery of Lawlessness, 85 


Name, persecution for, 287 ff., 325 
Narrative gospels (é:yyjoes), 44, 206 
Nazarenes, 163 

NERO (See Epoch) 

NORDEN, E., 251 


Odes of Solomon, 142 

Oral tradition, 59, 217 

Order of gospel material, 11, 26, 28, 
39, 43 f. 

ORIGEN, 192, 254, 291 

Oxyrhynchus Fragment II, 205 


PAPIAS, 4, 22, 25-27, 35 ff., 47, 174, 
278, 283, 294 
champions Revelation, 32, 43 
disesteem for ‘books,’ 31 f. 
Parable of the Two Sons, 150 
Parables of the Kingdom, 139, 141, } 
263 
Paraclete, promise of, 185 
Paradise, 165, 254 ff. 
Parousia (See Coming). 
Parthenon inscription, 99 
Paschal Chronicle, 174 f., 187 
Passion story, 200 
Passover (Paschal) observance (See 
Easter) 
Passover Psalm (Ps. 118), 264 
Pastoral Epistles, 7, 36, 329 
Pauline Epistles, 70, 242 ff., 261 ff. 
Pauline eschatology, 79 ff. 
Pauline influence, 242 ff., 261 ff. 
Paulinism of Mark, 147, 247 ff., 262 
Pella, flight to, 100 
Penitent harlot, 158 
son, 150, 202 
thief, 201 f. 
Persecution, warning of, 185 
under Domitian, 283 
Peter, Apocalypse of, 255 ff., 279 
Gospel of, 187, 191 f., 279, 312, 314 
Preaching of, 82, 181, 192, 241, 248, 
279, 332 
Teaching of, 187, 192 
First Epistle, 5, 7, 32, 275 ff., 279, 
295, 327 
Peter, Apostle, denial by, 184, 306 
flight of, 198, 285, 292 


INDEX 


manifestation to, 183 f., 193 f., 198, 
320 . 
martyrdom of, 281, 285 ff., 292, 296 
source of tradition, 245 
turning (repentance) of, 183, 198 
vocation of, 306 
Petrine narrative, 7, 9f., 245, 306 f., 
317, 334 
PFLEIDERER, O., 14 
Pharisees, 81 
PHILO, 141, 239, 258 
Pillars for dating, 53 
PotycaRP, Epistle, 7, 22, 35f., 38 
Bishop, 174 
Preaching of Peter (See Peter) 
Precepts (Adya) of Jesus 
Logia) 
Priority of Mark, 4, 9 
Procius, Dialogue (See Gaius) 
Profanation of the temple, 
100 f., 113, 124 f., 128 
Prologue (Mk. 1: 1-13), 7, 320 
Monarchian, to Mt., 41 
Monarchian, to Jn., 43 f. 
Prologues (argumenta), 48 
Proof, burden of, 69, 76 
Prophecy, limitation of change in, 91 
Prophet like Moses, 165 
Protevangelium Jacobi, 9 
Proto-Mark, Matthew, etc. (See Ur- 
Marcus, ete.) 
Purging of temple (See Temple) 
Purity, inward, 146, 148, 263 


(See 


96 f., 








Q (double-tradition material), 4, 11, 
114, 122, 124, 126, 140, 146, 150, 
152 ff., 155, 158, 162, 215, 227, 
249 f., 318, 330 

QUADRATUS, 8, 35 

Quartodecimanism, 42 f., 171 ff., 176 

Questions in the temple, 151, 264 

Quotations from Scripture, 211 


RAMSAY, Sir W. M., 279 ff., 287 

Rank and Reward, 166 

Receiving vs. Stumbling (See Mark, 
discourses of) 

Reconciliation, 12, 186, 240, 260 

Redeemer, 236 f. 

Reminiscences (dmrouvnuoveduara) of 
Peter, 12, 30, 47 f., 53, 276 f., 282, 
295, 298, 306, 317 


339 


Renunciation and Reward (See Mark, 

discourses of) 

Restrainer of Antichrist, 87, 90, 94, 
113, 131, 319 

Resurrection story, 183, 311 f. 

Revelation of John, 44, 55, 88 

Rich Enquirer, 262, 268 

Roman Easter observance, 176 

Ropes, J. H., 231 ff., 281, 296 


Sabbath controversies, 157 

Sacrament (See Supper) 

Sadducees, 81 

SALMOND, 293 

SANDAY, W., 27, 120 

Sayings and doings of Christ, 317, 
320 

ScHARFE, E., 208, 212 

SCHECHTER, S., 233, 238 

ScHMiptT, K. L., viii, 47 

SCHMIEDEL, P. W., 199, 215 

SCHURER, E., 93, 265 

SCHWEITZER, A., 247 

Second (Teaching) Source, 9, 10, 40 
(See also Q) 

Semitisms, 207, 210, 214f. 

Sending of the Twelve, 139, 159 f. 

Septuagint (LXX), 208, 211f., 214, 
266 


Servant doctrine, 181, 191, 196, 201, 
223 ff., 227, 231, 252, 268, 321, 
324, 329, 334 

Shiqqutz (Abomination of Desola- 
tion), 56, 60, 62, 64, 66, 79, 95, 
105, 109, 120 

Shortening of the days, 128, 130, 262 

Sifting by Satan, 186 

Silvanus, 83, 279, 284, 329 

Slighted Invitation, parable, 114 

Special Source of Luke, 11, 116 f., 118, 
121 f., 124-127, 132f., 151, 153, 
IGLI MUTI 7G 1S lite e185. W191: 
193 ff., 200 ff., 228, 242, 264, 269, 
315 

Aramaic, 198, 214 
Spectrum analysis, 13, 325 
Spirit, gifts of, 230, 228f., 252 
life in, 230, 234, 258 
as Advocate, 107, 123 

STANTON, V. H.,.14, 35 

STRACK, on Mt., 254 

STREETER, B. H., viii, 120, 150 

Stumbling of Israel, 157, 159 


340 


Subapostolic age, 326 

SUETONIUS, 100 

Supper, Covenant, Lord’s, 176 ff., 182, 
269 

SweEre, H. B., 62, 66, 130 


Syntagma (ovrvrakis) of the logia 
(See Compend) 

Tabernacles of flesh, 254, 257 

TATIAN, Diatessaron, 42 

Teaching of the Twelve, 25, 104, 


128 f., 173, 179, 216, 221, 270 
Temple, desecration of, 102 (See also 
Profanation ) 
fall of, 101, 131, 133 
purging (cleansing) of, 168 
veil of, 332 
Termini (See Limits of date) 
TERTULLIAN, 288 f. 
THAYER, J. H., 200 
THEODOTION, 142 
THEOPHILUS, of Antioch, 41 
Thessalonian Eschatology, 838, 85, 
88 ff., 92, 101f., 224, 262, 308, 
318 f. 
THEUDAS, 96 
Tomb of Jesus, 314 f. 
Torah and mitzwah, 232 ff., 321, 332 
Torah of Matthew (See Matthew) 
TORREY, C. C., 6, 16, 54 f., 58, 80, 266 
Transfiguration, 164 ff., 249, 253, 
256 f., 259, 267 
Translation Greek, 60, 218, 311 
Trial before Pilate, 184, 200 
before Sanhedrin, 200 
Tribulation, the Great (Odljis), 108, 
110 f., 117, 128, 133, 308 


INDEX 


Tribute money, 268 
Triumphal entry, 168 

Trump of God, 89, 104, 111 f. 
Tyre and Sidon (See Gentiles) 


Ur-Marcus (Proto-Mark), 47 

Ur-Matthaeus, 21, 154 

Usurping Husbandmen (See Mark, 
discourses of) 


Vaticanus codex, 190, 203 

Victor, of Antioch, 27 

Virgin birth, 224 

Voice from heaven, 252 (See also 
Midrash) 

VOLKMAR, 15, 246 

Vouz, P., 254 

Von DosscHutTz, E., 83 


‘We’ document of Acts, 6, 16, 57 

WEISS, J., 46 

WELLHAUSEN, J., 60, 66, 133, 162, 
212 

WENDT, H. H., 162 

WERNER, M., vii, 247, 263 

WERNLE, P., 40, 300- 

Widow’s Mites, 170 

Wisdom Christology, 228 f., 252, 324 
(See also Incarnation) 

Wisdom sources, 9, 149, 154, 231 235 
Women at the tomb, 199, 203, 312 f., 
314 f. (See also Appearances) 

Works of the Christ, 251 

ZAHN, Th., 21, 28-30, 48 f., 192, 275, 
279, 282 

Zealots, 81 





. ‘i —_ 
ene ee 


a 


os 
~ ~~. } 
‘a i} 
> ) ‘eo " 
mi 
fe ‘i 
A : 
ah wia% 1 vi 
i i wee 
ya 

y 
Nor 

fas oy >} a 








ee Hae ide i bi; 0 
th rae a) is | | 
nae. j j 
é i, 
>) re Ds 
! - 
. 
i ng iP 
A (3 Ns ‘ 
° - i i 


Ree wah 
a - af 1 r. ah 








sf | So yf ham 

rh ‘ An 7) * 
Va ie 

¥ A 

4 ivy ly WH ‘ . 4 

‘ yen P bed y 
‘ ¥ a ve pings & 
np? ‘a 









pee a wy ORAT c) 
Bag soya 


net Wy Wea iach 4 " ty 


te o AP: aera Mp he 
.) See Pr ar ay ue by 
' STP WARS, ae | Ly ay Web gan 








Wee) Ua pat % 7 
Tie Bie ha nia a f 
; ) ‘ie 
by tke y eae hi ae 
AA aN: apn aavee 
i 4 ¥ 
Ab) SWE | oo Wwe dark: nat ck 
F a a? yi a et : ; > > a : : 
ea W4 Tae eat aa? ee Ri 
ere Nuk i ae t CaAtp: 
AAC ty De EMS bry ae! salt Ws we * fs 
‘ 1 A ¥ . \ as a ‘ ki , : 
he v4 
iQ, 4 t ; 3 mh 7h 
ti ‘ ‘ae my as gree * 
4a et ! 1 , 

















MB ‘ie a arty j ey 8 hi ; thy 1 Oe canna ‘Ws i. ‘i 4 % 
“at Honk A faa Mud P i Nee it, b ‘a id ry i 

Abid honed, ap hia as OME yi eta ee ai f ile ¥ F s, ry 

Crs ols ae C17 te ah bab Ane Ye) 2) nahin 

fA ON he Pere he io Oe “i i) he mn “hit 

Poe) me ane sve so ce Ve ea yh he et 
hy, “s y en r babe | oan iL 

ed a Tce Aa eg ath 7 is ate : 
eR ive t w fal oa + ae ; a 7 cnt res, va ati 
awe ais re a? Al iy. | : ; ia Li bur 
VASA) DE LAM Runa 


j ; vee 
we i row Gar , | Ah 








Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Li brary 


CU 


1 2 0001 












































DATE DUE 








Emer ae 





